TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether disciplinary proceedings could validly continue against a revenue officer for quasi-judicial orders in the absence of material showing mala fides, bias, undue favouritism or culpable negligence. (ii) Whether all the charges framed against the petitioner were sustainable on the available material.
Issue (i): Whether disciplinary proceedings could validly continue against a revenue officer for quasi-judicial orders in the absence of material showing mala fides, bias, undue favouritism or culpable negligence.
Analysis: A quasi-judicial officer is not immune from disciplinary action merely because the impugned act was done in the exercise of adjudicatory power. However, the settled distinction is that a wrong or erroneous decision, by itself, does not amount to misconduct. Disciplinary action is justified only where there is material showing recklessness, bad faith, corrupt motive, undue favour, lack of integrity, or culpable negligence. In the absence of such foundational material, a bona fide erroneous exercise of power cannot be converted into misconduct.
Conclusion: Disciplinary proceedings could not be sustained merely on the basis of quasi-judicial orders without factual foundation of misconduct.
Issue (ii): Whether all the charges framed against the petitioner were sustainable on the available material.
Analysis: On the materials placed, Charges 2, 3 and 4 did not disclose any allegation or proof of bias, favouritism, mala fide or tainted conduct. Those charges were founded only on the petitioner's quasi-judicial decisions and therefore could not justify disciplinary inquiry. Charge 1 stood on a different footing because the record disclosed some material suggesting mala fide intention, including allegations of discussion with one of the parties, and that charge was not shown to be unsustainable.
Conclusion: Charges 2, 3 and 4 were set aside, while Charge 1 was permitted to stand.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded in part by restraining disciplinary action on the charges lacking any factual basis of misconduct, while leaving the remaining charge undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: An erroneous quasi-judicial order, without material showing mala fides, undue favouritism, recklessness or culpable negligence, cannot by itself constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
