https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157826 A controlling authority may validly initiate disciplinary proceedings even where another authority is empowered to impose punishment, because the power to commence proceedings is distinct from the power to impose penalty. The text also explains that sub-delegation is valid only when expressly or necessarily authorised: powers conferred independently by subordinate legislation could be assigned further under Regulations 12(2) and 13(1), so the related delegation orders were upheld. By contrast, Rule 16(2) and the Standing Committee resolution were invalid only to the extent they permitted further delegation of powers already delegated under Section 94-A, and that limited infirmity did not undo the entire delegation scheme. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157826 A controlling authority may validly initiate disciplinary proceedings even where another authority is empowered to impose punishment, because the power to commence proceedings is distinct from the power to impose penalty. The text also explains that sub-delegation is valid only when expressly or necessarily authorised: powers conferred independently by subordinate legislation could be assigned further under Regulations 12(2) and 13(1), so the related delegation orders were upheld. By contrast, Rule 16(2) and the Standing Committee resolution were invalid only to the extent they permitted further delegation of powers already delegated under Section 94-A, and that limited infirmity did not undo the entire delegation scheme. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157826