CA Ratan Singh Tanwar’s Post

Supreme Court Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against retired employees or employees who serviced off their tenure will not be entertained Excerpts The Supreme Court invalidated the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a bank employee after the completion of his extended period of service. The disciplinary proceeding initiated after the superannuation or after the extended period of service cannot be sustained, the Court observed. “As has been held by this Court on more than one occasion, a subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.”, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said. Case Title: STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS NAVIN KUMAR SINHA, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2024 Source : Livelaw

Day 2 of the #54thAAC Annual Accountants Conference. Two very insightful sessions centering around governance and economic reforms checked ✅️ today. Reimagining governance with many other professionals...

The governance structure of our state consists of three branches: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. The Constitution outlines roles, responsibilities, and specific vested powers within these branches to prevent the concentration of power in a single individual or entity. This system is designed to establish a system of accountability through checks and balances among those who wield and exercise authority within the governance structure. However, the Executive’s response to the recent interim order issued by the Supreme Court on the appointment of Mr Deshabandu Tennekoon as the Inspector General of Police is deeply concerning. This action appears to undermine the checks and balances fundamental to our governance model and threatens our democratic principles. As citizens of Sri Lanka, we demand the executive and legislative branches to uphold and respect due process, reinforcing the system of checks and balances. This incident serves as a reminder of the harmful consequences of concentrating power in a single branch of governance. As we approach the election period, we urge political parties and candidates to develop practical policy plans that promote the clear separation of powers and prevent the consolidation of authority within one branch of government. "Clearly, the consolidation did not intend the President to function as an unfettered repository of executive power unconstrained by other organs of governance."   In Supreme Court determination, R. Sampanthan and Others v. Attorney General (2018)

In the last 10 years domination of IAS officers decreased to around 35% at the highest level of bureaucracy ( secretary or above ) Good going,each service needs to be treated equally

𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝗗 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗥𝗮𝗵𝘂𝗹 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱? 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗵𝗶 (01.12.2023): “It was not only expected but inevitable as well,” said several senior civil servants across services after the Centre issued an order empanelling 𝗥𝗮𝗵𝘂𝗹 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻 (IRS IT: 1993), the interim chief of Enforcement Directorate, for holding Additional Secretary rank post in the Government of India. Navin was appointed as in-charge director or head of ED on September 15, 2023 following the end of the tenure of S K Mishra. It may be underlined that post of Director in ED is in fact Additional Secretary level post which is often elevated (temporarily) to the rank and pay of Secretary, Government of India. His predecessor Sanjay Kumar Mishra (Retd IRS IT: 1984) also took over as ED Chief as Additional Secretary and later he was empanelled and elevated to the rank and pay of Secretary. A section of senior officials believes that the Centre may have signalled well that it can regularise Rahul Navin as full-fledged Director of ED; the federal probe agency tasked to investigate financial crimes under three laws – the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA). For more such updates visit - https://lnkd.in/gjs5JFMk #IndianPolitics #GovernmentUpdates #IndianMandarins #ED #India

This judgment follows in the wake of the Constitutional Court in Mamasedi v Chief of the South African Defence Force and Others (Mamasedi). In that matter, a member of the regular force had been absent from duty from 29 November 2011 to 3 January 2012, a period of more than 30 calendar days. Section 59(3) of the Defence Act provides for a deemed dismissal in the event of a period of absence for a period exceeding 30 days. At issue was whether ‘days’ should be interpreted as calendar days or days on which the member was obliged to be on official duty. The Constitutional Court unanimously held that for the purposes of calculating the 30-day period, only the days on which the member was obliged to be on duty should be taken into account. Since the period of absence without permission was less than 30 days so calculated, s 59 (3) was never triggered. The Court considered that in these circumstances, the order of reinstatement sought by the member was incompetent . In the present instance, it concerned the calculation of the 14-day period referred to in s 14(1)(a) which was thus to be done by accounting *not for calendar days, but only for those days on which the employee was obliged to be at work.* It follows that the 14-day period on which the Department relied to invoke s 14(1)(a) had not yet expired [on 29 November 2017], calculated as it was as calendar days. In short, the Department’s calculation of the dies was incorrect and the Department’s reliance on s 14(1)(a) was thus premature.

I reviewed the Rajya Sabha affidavit of our Hon'ble Finance Minister & its very interesting ✅ Her total net worth (assets - liabilities) stands at 𝗜𝗡𝗥 𝟮.𝟯 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀, with a taxable income of 𝗜𝗡𝗥 𝟴 𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗵𝘀 (in FY 2020-21) which increased from 𝗜𝗡𝗥 𝟰 𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗵𝘀 (in FY 2012-13) 🤔🤔 ✅ There is a decrease in the value of her immovable assets, which dropped from 𝗜𝗡𝗥 𝟭,𝟵𝟴,𝟳𝟮,𝟬𝟬𝟬 (𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗬 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮-𝟭𝟯) 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗡𝗥 𝟭,𝟳𝟬,𝟱𝟭,𝟰𝟬𝟬 (𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗬 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬-𝟮𝟭). I guess indexation benefits really don't make sense.  Middle class should surely learn her saving, investing and accounting techniques. You can check out the affidavits here: 📌 Old Affidavit: https://lnkd.in/ghXaRNza 📌 Latest Affidavit: https://lnkd.in/gSv-dDca Source: ADR India & MyNeta #Budget2024 #Finance #PersonalFinance #Taxation

What a prompt reply was given by CA Anuj Goyal Ji, CCM, to the Hon Minister regarding the credibility of CAs. We need this type of aggression from our leaders otherwise the profession will be in a very bad position. We chartered accountants are partners in nation building. Without support of our Chartered accountants , 5 trillion economy is just imagination. #charteredaccountant #icai #Partnerinnationbuilding

Auditor-General Tsakani Maluleke underscores the urgent need for #Professionalization of local gov. With R14-billion lost & 266 MIs since 2019, she highlights the crucial role of competent management in public finance. #AGSA #PublicFinance #LocalGovernment https://lnkd.in/dQnNivat

The Supreme Court has made a significant ruling on the liability of directors in cases of cheque dishonour. In the case of Susela Padmavathy Amma vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, the Bench held that a director cannot be held liable for the day-to-day affairs of a company under Section 141 of the Act. For a director to be held responsible for the company's offenses, specific allegations must be made against them. This ruling provides clarity and protection to directors in such cases. #SupremeCourt #DirectorsLiability #ChequeDishonour Case Title: SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMA VS. M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 237