<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (9) TMI 154 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187904</link>
    <description>A vague show cause notice proposing censure was held insufficient because it did not clearly identify the charge, the rejected explanation, or the factual basis of the proposed action, and the resulting censure order was invalid. An order withholding pay and allowances during suspension was also held to require a prior reasonable opportunity of representation, since it imposed financial prejudice and had to rest on an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The Court held that this safeguard was not observed, particularly after disciplinary proceedings had been withdrawn, so the withholding order breached natural justice. The impugned judgment and both government orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 16:44:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (9) TMI 154 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187904</link>
      <description>A vague show cause notice proposing censure was held insufficient because it did not clearly identify the charge, the rejected explanation, or the factual basis of the proposed action, and the resulting censure order was invalid. An order withholding pay and allowances during suspension was also held to require a prior reasonable opportunity of representation, since it imposed financial prejudice and had to rest on an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The Court held that this safeguard was not observed, particularly after disciplinary proceedings had been withdrawn, so the withholding order breached natural justice. The impugned judgment and both government orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>