Generally, the rule of immunity of administrative officers requires the officer to act within his/her jurisdiction in order to protect the officer from liability.[i]  When a public officer goes outside the scope of his/her authority or duty, the officer is liable for his/her acts the same as any private individual.[ii]

However, it is not necessary that acts may be done within the scope of official authority; that they should be prescribed by statute; or even that they should be specifically directed or requested by a superior officer.[iii]

It is sufficient if the acts:

• are done by an officer in relation to matters committed by law to his/her control or supervision; or
• have more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to his/her control or supervision; or
• are governed by a lawful requirement of the department under whose authority the officer is acting.

[i] Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S. Ct. 631, 40 L. Ed. 780 (1896)

[ii] Town of Randolph v. Ketchum, 117 Vt. 468, 94 A.2d 410 (1953)

[iii] Tinkoff v. Campbell, 86 F. Supp. 331 (D. Ill. 1949)