<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1150 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197223</link>
    <description>In departmental enquiries, a disciplinary finding will stand where there is some evidence supporting the charge, the inquiry is not perverse, and there is no mala fides or complete absence of evidence. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, and the writ court cannot reappreciate the record as if it were an appellate forum. Documentary material, ledger entries, and the employee&#039;s own handwriting were treated as sufficient support for the misconduct finding, and the inquiry report was not invalid merely because it was brief or not drafted like a judicial judgment. The disciplinary action was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1150 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197223</link>
      <description>In departmental enquiries, a disciplinary finding will stand where there is some evidence supporting the charge, the inquiry is not perverse, and there is no mala fides or complete absence of evidence. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, and the writ court cannot reappreciate the record as if it were an appellate forum. Documentary material, ledger entries, and the employee&#039;s own handwriting were treated as sufficient support for the misconduct finding, and the inquiry report was not invalid merely because it was brief or not drafted like a judicial judgment. The disciplinary action was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>