<?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>2017 (2) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338829</link>
    <description>Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings is not automatically fatal, but it must be justified by the facts, the nature of the charge and any prejudice to the officer. On the stated facts, the delay from detection of the alleged irregularity to issuance of the charge-sheet was not satisfactorily explained, the objection had been raised at the earliest stage, and the lapse of time risked loss of records and faded memory. The Court also noted parity with another officer facing identical charges whose quashing order had attained finality. The process was therefore treated as unfairly prejudicial, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was not interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:03:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338829</link>
      <description>Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings is not automatically fatal, but it must be justified by the facts, the nature of the charge and any prejudice to the officer. On the stated facts, the delay from detection of the alleged irregularity to issuance of the charge-sheet was not satisfactorily explained, the objection had been raised at the earliest stage, and the lapse of time risked loss of records and faded memory. The Court also noted parity with another officer facing identical charges whose quashing order had attained finality. The process was therefore treated as unfairly prejudicial, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was not interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>