https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290316 Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy did not apply where a departmental penalty for negligent conduct causing departmental loss was followed by termination based on conviction in a criminal case. The two actions rested on different grounds, arose from separate causes of action, and operated under different parts of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Rule 7(2)(b) excluded the ordinary procedure for a major penalty imposed on the ground of conduct leading to criminal conviction, so the termination order based on conviction was valid. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:31:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290316 Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy did not apply where a departmental penalty for negligent conduct causing departmental loss was followed by termination based on conviction in a criminal case. The two actions rested on different grounds, arose from separate causes of action, and operated under different parts of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Rule 7(2)(b) excluded the ordinary procedure for a major penalty imposed on the ground of conduct leading to criminal conviction, so the termination order based on conviction was valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290316