<?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>1983 (11) TMI 340 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306644</link>
    <description>A disciplinary proceeding was upheld in its initiation and the charge-sheet in the Governor&#039;s name was found valid, but the enquiry could not stand on stale allegations arising from a remote 1967 incident. The Court held that inordinate delay destroyed the necessary nexus, suggested lack of bona fides, and, together with refusal to supply requested records, denied a reasonable opportunity of defence. It reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof in disciplinary matters and that natural justice must be observed. The challenge to jurisdiction and appointment of the enquiring authority failed, but the proceeding was vitiated to the extent it rested on the stale and procedurally unfair basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:45:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 340 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306644</link>
      <description>A disciplinary proceeding was upheld in its initiation and the charge-sheet in the Governor&#039;s name was found valid, but the enquiry could not stand on stale allegations arising from a remote 1967 incident. The Court held that inordinate delay destroyed the necessary nexus, suggested lack of bona fides, and, together with refusal to supply requested records, denied a reasonable opportunity of defence. It reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof in disciplinary matters and that natural justice must be observed. The challenge to jurisdiction and appointment of the enquiring authority failed, but the proceeding was vitiated to the extent it rested on the stale and procedurally unfair basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>