https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165200 Disciplinary proceedings under the 1951 Tribunal Rules were not discriminatory under Article 14 merely because they were more detailed or lacked an appeal, since the alternative departmental procedure was substantially similar and no prejudice was shown. Where some findings of misconduct were sustained and they still supported grave delinquency, the Court held that the choice of punishment lay with the competent authority and could not be reopened by directing reconsideration simply because other findings were interfered with. The penalty remained supportable on the upheld findings, so judicial interference with the quantum of punishment was unwarranted. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165200 Disciplinary proceedings under the 1951 Tribunal Rules were not discriminatory under Article 14 merely because they were more detailed or lacked an appeal, since the alternative departmental procedure was substantially similar and no prejudice was shown. Where some findings of misconduct were sustained and they still supported grave delinquency, the Court held that the choice of punishment lay with the competent authority and could not be reopened by directing reconsideration simply because other findings were interfered with. The penalty remained supportable on the upheld findings, so judicial interference with the quantum of punishment was unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165200