Quasi-judicial error in law alone does not justify disciplinary recovery without proof of mala fide or culpable negligence.

A quasi-judicial excise officer making RT-12 assessments cannot be subjected to disciplinary recovery merely because the assessment is later treated as legally wrong. Mere error in law, without more, is insufficient to amount to misconduct; disciplinary action requires prima facie material showing recklessness, culpable negligence, undue favour, corrupt motive, bad faith, or lack of integrity. As no mala fide or extraneous consideration was shown and the action rested mainly on alleged legal error and revenue loss, the Tribunal's view that recovery or penalty was unsustainable was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether disciplinary recovery could be sustained against a quasi-judicial excise officer on the basis of an alleged wrong interpretation of law and the resulting revenue loss.

Analysis: The officer was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity while making RT-12 assessments. The governing principle is that a mere error in law, by itself, does not amount to misconduct. Disciplinary action against a quasi-judicial authority requires something more, such as prima facie material showing recklessness, culpable negligence, undue favour, corrupt motive, or conduct reflecting lack of integrity or good faith. The record did not show mala fide intention or any extraneous consideration; the departmental action rested substantially on the premise that the assessment orders were wrong in law. On the settled principles applied, the Tribunal was correct in holding that such a basis was insufficient to impose recovery or penalty.

Conclusion: The disciplinary recovery could not be sustained and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial officer cannot be subjected to disciplinary action merely because the decision is legally erroneous; such action requires additional material showing recklessness, culpable negligence, bad faith, undue favour, or corrupt motive.

---