https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292107 Non-compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules vitiated the disciplinary process because the Superintendent of Police did more than give immediate intimation and instead proposed departmental action, while the District Magistrate merely accorded approval without independently deciding the course of action or recording reasons. The Rule required the District Magistrate to determine whether the complaint should be investigated by a police officer or entrusted to a magistrate, and any departmental disposal had to be supported by reasons. As that mandatory procedure was breached, the disciplinary proceedings were invalid and the dismissal order could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 09 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2020 12:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292107 Non-compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules vitiated the disciplinary process because the Superintendent of Police did more than give immediate intimation and instead proposed departmental action, while the District Magistrate merely accorded approval without independently deciding the course of action or recording reasons. The Rule required the District Magistrate to determine whether the complaint should be investigated by a police officer or entrusted to a magistrate, and any departmental disposal had to be supported by reasons. As that mandatory procedure was breached, the disciplinary proceedings were invalid and the dismissal order could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292107