https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279097 A prior-approval requirement for appointment or promotion under the CRPF Rules did not limit a separately conferred disciplinary power to dismiss a Subedar (Inspector); the Deputy Inspector General's dismissal order was therefore valid. The interpretation rejected any addition of words to Rule 27 and declined to supply a casus omissus. On proportionality, the record was insufficient for a full merits reassessment of punishment, but the employee's long service and the available materials justified limited equitable monetary relief. The dismissal was upheld, while monetary relief was granted in lieu of further interference. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2020 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279097 A prior-approval requirement for appointment or promotion under the CRPF Rules did not limit a separately conferred disciplinary power to dismiss a Subedar (Inspector); the Deputy Inspector General's dismissal order was therefore valid. The interpretation rejected any addition of words to Rule 27 and declined to supply a casus omissus. On proportionality, the record was insufficient for a full merits reassessment of punishment, but the employee's long service and the available materials justified limited equitable monetary relief. The dismissal was upheld, while monetary relief was granted in lieu of further interference. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279097