Disciplinary action for quasi-judicial acts may proceed on prima facie misconduct, with fair inquiry requiring witness testing and no proven bias.

Disciplinary proceedings against a retired officer for assessment, reassessment and refund orders in a quasi-judicial capacity may proceed where the charge-sheet discloses prima facie recklessness, negligence, misconduct or undue favour; a mere error of decision is insufficient, but the initiation was held valid on the alleged factual basis. Fairness in inquiry required the petitioner be allowed to examine or cross-examine the retired officer whose report formed the charges, subject to availability. An allegation of bias against the enquiry officer was not established because no objective material showed personal interest or a real apprehension of prejudice, though the employer could replace the enquiry or presenting officer to ensure expeditious completion.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a retired officer for acts done while passing assessment, reassessment and refund orders in a quasi-judicial capacity; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to examination and cross-examination of the retired officer whose report formed the basis of the charges; (iii) whether the allegation of bias against the enquiry officer was made out.

Issue (i): Whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a retired officer for acts done while passing assessment, reassessment and refund orders in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Analysis: The allegations were not confined to a mere erroneous quasi-judicial order. They included acceptance of revised returns without cogent material, consequential refund orders, failure to protect revenue, and acts said to be contrary to the prescribed conditions for exercise of statutory powers. The governing principle applied was that disciplinary action is permissible where there is prima facie material showing recklessness, misconduct, negligence, undue favour, or corrupt motive, even if the officer acted in a quasi-judicial setting. Mere error of decision would not suffice, but the charge-sheet disclosed more than a technical or isolated legal mistake.

Conclusion: The initiation of departmental proceedings was held to be valid and not illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to examination and cross-examination of the retired officer whose report formed the basis of the charges.

Analysis: The record did not show any clear order rejecting the request to call the retired officer. The proceedings had remained stayed for a long time, and no prejudice would be caused by permitting examination or cross-examination of the officer whose report underlay the allegations. Fairness in inquiry required that the relevant records be made available and that the petitioner have an opportunity to test the material relied upon in the enquiry.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have the retired officer examined or cross-examined in the departmental enquiry, subject to availability.

Issue (iii): Whether the allegation of bias against the enquiry officer was made out.

Analysis: The bias allegation was not supported by material showing any personal interest, predisposition, or conduct creating a reasonable apprehension of bias. The enquiry officer had been posted after the relevant events had already occurred, and the record did not establish any disqualifying bias. At the same time, to ensure continuation of the long-pending proceedings, the employer was left free to change the enquiry officer or presenting officer.

Conclusion: The allegation of bias was not established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the initiation of the departmental proceedings failed, but procedural directions were issued to secure a fair and expeditious continuation of the enquiry, including examination of the material witness and completion of the proceedings within a fixed time.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings may be sustained in respect of quasi-judicial acts where the charge-sheet discloses prima facie recklessness, misconduct, negligence, or undue favour, and fairness in inquiry may require opportunity to test the material relied upon, while bias must be supported by objective material creating a real apprehension of prejudice.

---