<?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>2024 (3) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450615</link>
    <description>Withholding 10% of monthly pension for three years was treated as unsustainable where the disciplinary record did not establish doubtful integrity, corrupt motive, statutory lack of devotion to duty, or pecuniary loss to the government. The inquiry report noted that recovery steps had been initiated, that the bonds and bank guarantees were only recovery mechanisms, and that their cancellation caused no revenue loss. The material also negatived habitual deficiency in performance and treated the lapse as a solitary bona fide mistake. Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules were therefore not proved to justify the penalty, and the punishment order and Tribunal order were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2024 06:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450615</link>
      <description>Withholding 10% of monthly pension for three years was treated as unsustainable where the disciplinary record did not establish doubtful integrity, corrupt motive, statutory lack of devotion to duty, or pecuniary loss to the government. The inquiry report noted that recovery steps had been initiated, that the bonds and bank guarantees were only recovery mechanisms, and that their cancellation caused no revenue loss. The material also negatived habitual deficiency in performance and treated the lapse as a solitary bona fide mistake. Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules were therefore not proved to justify the penalty, and the punishment order and Tribunal order were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>