TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General was invalid for want of prior approval of the Inspector General under the relevant rules governing appointment and punishment in the Force. (ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal called for interference on the ground of disproportionality, and whether some monetary relief was warranted on the facts.
Issue (i): Whether the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General was invalid for want of prior approval of the Inspector General under the relevant rules governing appointment and punishment in the Force.
Analysis: The rules distinguished between appointment and punishment. Prior approval of the Inspector General was required for certain appointments or promotions, but the appointing authority remained the Commandant. Rule 27 separately empowered the authorities named therein to impose punishments, including dismissal, on the specified ranks. Reading an approval requirement from the appointment rule into the punishment rule would amount to adding words that were not enacted. Such a construction was impermissible, and no casus omissus could be created where the language was clear.
Conclusion: The dismissal was not invalid on the ground that prior approval of the Inspector General was absent; the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General was legally competent.
Issue (ii): Whether the punishment of dismissal called for interference on the ground of disproportionality, and whether some monetary relief was warranted on the facts.
Analysis: Interference with punishment on the ground of disproportionality is limited to exceptional cases. The record available was insufficient to hold that the punishment was disproportionate to the proved charges, but the deceased employee had rendered long service and the full disciplinary record was not available. In the peculiar circumstances, the interests of justice justified a compensatory monetary direction instead of reopening the disciplinary penalty.
Conclusion: No interference with the dismissal was made on proportionality grounds, but the appellant was granted ex gratia monetary relief.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the legality of dismissal failed, but the appellant obtained limited relief by way of ex gratia payment, and the appeal stood disposed of on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: A requirement of prior approval for appointment does not convert the approving authority into the appointing authority, and such an approval condition cannot be read into a separate punishment provision by adding words to the rule.
TaxTMI 
