https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305848 A departmental dismissal was quashed where the punishment was imposed by a Superintendent although the officer had been appointed by the Deputy Inspector General, because the service rules and Article 311(1) required dismissal by the authority competent to appoint. The disciplinary scheme was treated as quasi-judicial, with safeguards such as inquiry, defence, records, and appeal. The earlier criminal acquittal did not bar the departmental proceedings, because Article 20(2) applies to prosecution before a court or legal tribunal and not to departmental action, and the police regulations expressly permitted discipline despite acquittal. en-us Tue, 22 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2022 18:03:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305848 A departmental dismissal was quashed where the punishment was imposed by a Superintendent although the officer had been appointed by the Deputy Inspector General, because the service rules and Article 311(1) required dismissal by the authority competent to appoint. The disciplinary scheme was treated as quasi-judicial, with safeguards such as inquiry, defence, records, and appeal. The earlier criminal acquittal did not bar the departmental proceedings, because Article 20(2) applies to prosecution before a court or legal tribunal and not to departmental action, and the police regulations expressly permitted discipline despite acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305848