Quasi-judicial conduct does not bar disciplinary enquiry where allegations show culpability or improper motive.

Disciplinary proceedings against an income-tax officer performing quasi-judicial functions are not barred merely because the impugned acts arose in that capacity; where the allegations disclose culpability, undue favour or improper motive, the enquiry may proceed, and interlocutory restraint was unwarranted. The separate issue of provisional pension turned on the absence of any identified enabling provision to justify withholding it during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry, so interference with the pension relief was declined at that stage, subject to liberty to seek variation before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether disciplinary proceedings against an income-tax officer could be stayed at the interlocutory stage on the ground that the impugned acts were performed in the course of quasi-judicial functions; (ii) whether payment of provisional pension could be withheld pending disciplinary enquiry.

Issue (i): whether disciplinary proceedings against an income-tax officer could be stayed at the interlocutory stage on the ground that the impugned acts were performed in the course of quasi-judicial functions.

Analysis: A mere assertion that the officer acted in the discharge of quasi-judicial duties does not bar disciplinary action in every case. Such action must be taken with great caution and after close scrutiny, because hasty proceedings may undermine the independence and confidence attached to judicial or quasi-judicial office. However, where the allegations disclose culpability, undue favour, or improper motive, disciplinary proceedings are maintainable and should not be stifled at an interim stage, particularly when the charges are serious and require enquiry on merits.

Conclusion: The stay of disciplinary proceedings was unjustified and was set aside; the enquiry was permitted to proceed according to law.

Issue (ii): whether payment of provisional pension could be withheld pending disciplinary enquiry.

Analysis: No provision was shown to justify stopping provisional pension during the pendency of the enquiry. In the absence of an identified enabling provision, interference with the pensionary relief was not warranted at that stage, though liberty was reserved to seek variation or vacation before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Interference with the pension order was declined.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in respect of the restraint on disciplinary proceedings, while the pension-related relief was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing quasi-judicial functions are not barred as a matter of law; they may proceed where the facts disclose culpability or improper motive, but only after careful scrutiny and with due caution.

---