Quashing of charge-sheet against quasi-judicial officer sustained where no mala fides, corruption, or jurisdictional illegality was shown.

Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal was condoned despite a vague explanation, and the Court proceeded to hear the matter on merits. On the disciplinary issue, writ interference with a charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial officer was upheld because the record disclosed no corruption, mala fides, extraneous consideration, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied the settled rule that a charge-sheet is not normally quashed in writ jurisdiction, but exceptional interference is available where the proceeding is wholly illegal or without jurisdiction. Bona fide quasi-judicial action was therefore protected, and disciplinary action could not rest merely on an alleged error of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the charge-sheet issued against a quasi-judicial officer could be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction where the allegations did not disclose corruption, mala fides, or lack of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay was found to be vague and lacking material particulars. The explanation offered did not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay, and the Court noted that no sufficient cause had been made out. At the same time, the appeal was heard on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge-sheet issued against a quasi-judicial officer could be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction where the allegations did not disclose corruption, mala fides, or lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction ordinarily is not used to quash a charge-sheet, but that a rare and exceptional case may justify interference where the proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. It relied on the statutory scheme governing the Tribunal and recovery process, including the Presiding Officer's limited powers in relation to certificates and the protection for acts done in good faith. The material placed before the Chairman, DRAT and the bank's affidavits showed that the settlement had been accepted by the bank, the recovery policy had been followed, and there was no allegation of corruption, malafides, or any extraneous consideration against the respondent. The challenge was therefore treated as an impermissible attempt to penalize bona fide judicial or quasi-judicial action.

Conclusion: The charge-sheet was rightly quashed and the writ interference was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the respondent's protection against disciplinary action for a bona fide quasi-judicial order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial officer cannot be sustained merely because the officer may have erred in law or exercised jurisdiction wrongly; disciplinary action requires material showing mala fides, corruption, extraneous consideration, or action wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.

---