https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196942 Suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules was upheld because disciplinary proceedings were contemplated after release from custody, making the authority competent to suspend. Immediate custody after Court Martial sentencing was lawful because Section 167 of the Army Act treats the sentence as commencing from the signing of the original proceedings. Dismissal under Rule 19 was also valid, since prior conviction enables disciplinary action on the basis of that conviction after notice and consideration of representation, so no pre-determined mind arose. Simultaneous Army Act and departmental proceedings were permissible because they operated in distinct penal and disciplinary es and did not attract double jeopardy under Article 20. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:33:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196942 Suspension under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules was upheld because disciplinary proceedings were contemplated after release from custody, making the authority competent to suspend. Immediate custody after Court Martial sentencing was lawful because Section 167 of the Army Act treats the sentence as commencing from the signing of the original proceedings. Dismissal under Rule 19 was also valid, since prior conviction enables disciplinary action on the basis of that conviction after notice and consideration of representation, so no pre-determined mind arose. Simultaneous Army Act and departmental proceedings were permissible because they operated in distinct penal and disciplinary es and did not attract double jeopardy under Article 20. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196942