https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311692 Where an enquiry officer exonerates an employee on one charge and the disciplinary authority proposes to differ, it must record reasons for disagreement and give an effective opportunity to respond before holding the employee guilty; the finding on Charge No. 1 was therefore unsustainable. The dismissal was nevertheless sustained because Charges Nos. 2 to 7 were separately proved by documentary evidence, involved grave misconduct, and were severable from the vitiated charge. The disciplinary and appellate orders were also held to be reasoned and not non-speaking, as both authorities considered the enquiry record, the employee's reply, and the objections raised. Judicial review would not reappreciate the merits where the enquiry was fair and the punishment was supported by evidence. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jan 2024 20:47:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311692 Where an enquiry officer exonerates an employee on one charge and the disciplinary authority proposes to differ, it must record reasons for disagreement and give an effective opportunity to respond before holding the employee guilty; the finding on Charge No. 1 was therefore unsustainable. The dismissal was nevertheless sustained because Charges Nos. 2 to 7 were separately proved by documentary evidence, involved grave misconduct, and were severable from the vitiated charge. The disciplinary and appellate orders were also held to be reasoned and not non-speaking, as both authorities considered the enquiry record, the employee's reply, and the objections raised. Judicial review would not reappreciate the merits where the enquiry was fair and the punishment was supported by evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311692