<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1980 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309645</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the case, upholding the legality of the suspension and its extensions under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The respondents were directed to file the charge memo within three months and reconsider the need for ongoing suspension at the next review, possibly transferring the applicant. Procedural delays were not seen as automatically favoring the applicant due to the serious allegations against them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1980 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309645</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the case, upholding the legality of the suspension and its extensions under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The respondents were directed to file the charge memo within three months and reconsider the need for ongoing suspension at the next review, possibly transferring the applicant. Procedural delays were not seen as automatically favoring the applicant due to the serious allegations against them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>