Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings and punishment could be sustained against a tax assessing officer whose assessment orders were said to be wrong, on the ground that the conduct complained of amounted to misconduct and negligence rather than a mere erroneous quasi-judicial decision.
Analysis: The charge against the officer was not confined to the correctness of the assessment orders but related to negligent discharge of duty, failure to scrutinise accounts properly, failure to subject turnover to tax, and consequential loss to the revenue. The governing principle is that a Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the truth or correctness of disciplinary charges and can interfere only where no misconduct is made out or the charge is contrary to law. Even where an officer exercises quasi-judicial powers, disciplinary action is permissible if the conduct shows recklessness, negligence, lack of good faith, undue favour, corrupt motive, or other misconduct. A mere erroneous order, without more, does not justify disciplinary action, but that limitation does not apply where the officer's conduct in discharge of duty is under scrutiny.
Conclusion: The punishment was validly imposed and the Tribunal was not justified in setting it aside.