https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333698 In disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, misconduct need only be established on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. The Court accepted that departmental material, including evidence indicating receipt of a bribe share, had been considered by the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal, and held that the criminal-law rule on the evidential value of a Section 164 CrPC statement had limited relevance in this context. Hearsay was not wholly excluded where it had a nexus to the charge. The Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the punishment was therefore sustained, and no ground for judicial interference was made out. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333698 In disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, misconduct need only be established on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. The Court accepted that departmental material, including evidence indicating receipt of a bribe share, had been considered by the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal, and held that the criminal-law rule on the evidential value of a Section 164 CrPC statement had limited relevance in this context. Hearsay was not wholly excluded where it had a nexus to the charge. The Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the punishment was therefore sustained, and no ground for judicial interference was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333698