<?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>1993 (4) TMI 340 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463387</link>
    <description>Sealed cover procedure applies where, before the DPC meets, the competent authority has already decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings on a defined factual basis, including a registered FIR communicated to departmental authorities. The later issuance of the charge-sheet does not alter the position if the prior decision to proceed for major penalty had already crystallised the allegations. The governing principle is that the employee&#039;s promotion consideration may be kept in sealed cover once disciplinary or criminal action has been validly initiated before the selection process. On these facts, the application of the sealed cover procedure was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2025 13:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (4) TMI 340 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463387</link>
      <description>Sealed cover procedure applies where, before the DPC meets, the competent authority has already decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings on a defined factual basis, including a registered FIR communicated to departmental authorities. The later issuance of the charge-sheet does not alter the position if the prior decision to proceed for major penalty had already crystallised the allegations. The governing principle is that the employee&#039;s promotion consideration may be kept in sealed cover once disciplinary or criminal action has been validly initiated before the selection process. On these facts, the application of the sealed cover procedure was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>