<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (2) TMI 531 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300626</link>
    <description>A disciplinary penalty imposed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was without jurisdiction because, under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the Head of Department was the competent disciplinary authority for the cadre and no prior delegation existed. A later administrative delegation could not retrospectively authorise an order already passed without power, since administrative orders ordinarily operate prospectively unless the governing law clearly permits retrospective effect. The punishment order was therefore liable to be quashed, and the appellate order founded on it also fell. The State was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:51:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 531 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300626</link>
      <description>A disciplinary penalty imposed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was without jurisdiction because, under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the Head of Department was the competent disciplinary authority for the cadre and no prior delegation existed. A later administrative delegation could not retrospectively authorise an order already passed without power, since administrative orders ordinarily operate prospectively unless the governing law clearly permits retrospective effect. The punishment order was therefore liable to be quashed, and the appellate order founded on it also fell. The State was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>