<?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>2020 (7) TMI 636 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396967</link>
    <description>Departmental findings must remain confined to the charge-memo and establish the specific statutory breaches alleged; reliance on an uncharged general financial-practice violation renders the finding perverse. Where the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority are separate, the employee must receive the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority reaches its conclusion. Supplying it only with the penalty order denies an effective opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice where prejudice results. A cryptic appellate order that does not address appeal grounds is unsustainable, and cancellation of promotion founded solely on the invalid penalty cannot survive. The disciplinary action, penalty, appellate affirmation and consequential promotion cancellation were set aside, with restoration of promotional benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 636 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396967</link>
      <description>Departmental findings must remain confined to the charge-memo and establish the specific statutory breaches alleged; reliance on an uncharged general financial-practice violation renders the finding perverse. Where the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority are separate, the employee must receive the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority reaches its conclusion. Supplying it only with the penalty order denies an effective opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice where prejudice results. A cryptic appellate order that does not address appeal grounds is unsustainable, and cancellation of promotion founded solely on the invalid penalty cannot survive. The disciplinary action, penalty, appellate affirmation and consequential promotion cancellation were set aside, with restoration of promotional benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>