https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199105 SC held that a prior-approval requirement attached to appointments could not be read into a separate punishment provision. The rules distinguished appointment from disciplinary power, and the Deputy Inspector General was competent to impose dismissal without Inspector General approval. The Court also declined interference on disproportionality grounds, finding no sufficient basis to treat the punishment as excessive on the record available. However, in view of the employee's long service and the incomplete disciplinary record, the Court granted limited ex gratia monetary relief instead of reopening the penalty. The challenge to the legality of dismissal therefore failed, subject only to that compensatory direction. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199105 SC held that a prior-approval requirement attached to appointments could not be read into a separate punishment provision. The rules distinguished appointment from disciplinary power, and the Deputy Inspector General was competent to impose dismissal without Inspector General approval. The Court also declined interference on disproportionality grounds, finding no sufficient basis to treat the punishment as excessive on the record available. However, in view of the employee's long service and the incomplete disciplinary record, the Court granted limited ex gratia monetary relief instead of reopening the penalty. The challenge to the legality of dismissal therefore failed, subject only to that compensatory direction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199105