https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298856 Rule 14(8) of the 1966 Rules makes permission to engage a legal practitioner in a departmental enquiry discretionary, unless the rule's stated conditions are met. A serving Judge was not treated as a legal practitioner for this purpose, and the delinquent officer could have taken assistance from another Government servant; absent proof of prejudice, refusal of counsel did not breach natural justice. On the misconduct charge, unexplained bank deposits were upheld because the officer failed to substantiate the claimed agricultural income with supporting evidence, and disciplinary findings based on evidence are not disturbed unless perverse. The challenge to the enquiry and removal from service therefore failed. en-us Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Nov 2021 06:11:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298856 Rule 14(8) of the 1966 Rules makes permission to engage a legal practitioner in a departmental enquiry discretionary, unless the rule's stated conditions are met. A serving Judge was not treated as a legal practitioner for this purpose, and the delinquent officer could have taken assistance from another Government servant; absent proof of prejudice, refusal of counsel did not breach natural justice. On the misconduct charge, unexplained bank deposits were upheld because the officer failed to substantiate the claimed agricultural income with supporting evidence, and disciplinary findings based on evidence are not disturbed unless perverse. The challenge to the enquiry and removal from service therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298856