<?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>2026 (8) TMI 1060 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797186</link>
    <description>Expiry of the ordinary time-frame for completing a disciplinary inquiry under the Central Civil Services rules does not nullify proceedings unless the rule expressly prescribes abatement or the charged employee establishes inordinate, unexplained delay causing demonstrable prejudice, mala fides or oppression. Deferred promotion during pending proceedings alone is not legal prejudice, and written extensions may be granted for recorded good and sufficient reasons. A charge memorandum remains valid where the competent disciplinary authority approved major-penalty proceedings and allegations of mechanical approval lack cogent supporting material. The borrowing authority may conduct preliminary fact-finding or vigilance consultation for conduct during deputation, while the competent parent-cadre authority issues the charge memorandum. Specific tendering and procedural-irregularity allegations require evidentiary determination in the inquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:20:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1060 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797186</link>
      <description>Expiry of the ordinary time-frame for completing a disciplinary inquiry under the Central Civil Services rules does not nullify proceedings unless the rule expressly prescribes abatement or the charged employee establishes inordinate, unexplained delay causing demonstrable prejudice, mala fides or oppression. Deferred promotion during pending proceedings alone is not legal prejudice, and written extensions may be granted for recorded good and sufficient reasons. A charge memorandum remains valid where the competent disciplinary authority approved major-penalty proceedings and allegations of mechanical approval lack cogent supporting material. The borrowing authority may conduct preliminary fact-finding or vigilance consultation for conduct during deputation, while the competent parent-cadre authority issues the charge memorandum. Specific tendering and procedural-irregularity allegations require evidentiary determination in the inquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>