<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2726 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273761</link>
    <description>Misappropriation of salary deductions and failure to maintain proper cash custody justified disciplinary action against the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, who was required to keep non-Government money in a separate account, verify daily balances, make proper register entries, and ensure safe custody. The Court held that the misconduct proved against the petitioner was more serious than that of the cashier, so the fact that the co-employee received a lesser punishment did not make the petitioner&#039;s penalty illegal or disproportionate. The disciplinary and tribunal orders were therefore upheld, with no interference warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:11:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2726 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273761</link>
      <description>Misappropriation of salary deductions and failure to maintain proper cash custody justified disciplinary action against the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, who was required to keep non-Government money in a separate account, verify daily balances, make proper register entries, and ensure safe custody. The Court held that the misconduct proved against the petitioner was more serious than that of the cashier, so the fact that the co-employee received a lesser punishment did not make the petitioner&#039;s penalty illegal or disproportionate. The disciplinary and tribunal orders were therefore upheld, with no interference warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>