<?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 (7) TMI 1244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276505</link>
    <description>Appointment of the Director General of Police was treated as a fresh appointment under the minimum-tenure framework, rather than an extension of service, and allegations of mala fide selection were not sustained. Alleged bribery based on account-book entries and intermediary payments lacked direct corroboration linking the appointee to receipt of unlawful payments; unverified material therefore need not have been forwarded for empanelment. A request to transfer the enquiry to the CBI was declined because the vigilance agency had initiated a preliminary enquiry and no basis for presumed bias was established. Independent vigilance oversight was required to protect the enquiry from departmental, political, or official interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:46:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276505</link>
      <description>Appointment of the Director General of Police was treated as a fresh appointment under the minimum-tenure framework, rather than an extension of service, and allegations of mala fide selection were not sustained. Alleged bribery based on account-book entries and intermediary payments lacked direct corroboration linking the appointee to receipt of unlawful payments; unverified material therefore need not have been forwarded for empanelment. A request to transfer the enquiry to the CBI was declined because the vigilance agency had initiated a preliminary enquiry and no basis for presumed bias was established. Independent vigilance oversight was required to protect the enquiry from departmental, political, or official interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>