<?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>2019 (12) TMI 707 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389824</link>
    <description>Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings was found prejudicial where the complaint remained pending through prolonged preliminary inquiry and investigation, affecting service prospects and promotion consideration; the charge-sheet was quashed on that basis. On merits, the charge-sheet also failed because the record showed the tender papers were not with the employee after scrutiny was handed over, the governing manual allocated safe-custody responsibility differently, and the treatment of similarly placed officers was inconsistent. Applying fairness and parity in disciplinary action, the tribunal order was set aside and consequential promotion consideration without sealed-cover treatment was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:02:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 707 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389824</link>
      <description>Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings was found prejudicial where the complaint remained pending through prolonged preliminary inquiry and investigation, affecting service prospects and promotion consideration; the charge-sheet was quashed on that basis. On merits, the charge-sheet also failed because the record showed the tender papers were not with the employee after scrutiny was handed over, the governing manual allocated safe-custody responsibility differently, and the treatment of similarly placed officers was inconsistent. Applying fairness and parity in disciplinary action, the tribunal order was set aside and consequential promotion consideration without sealed-cover treatment was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>