Quasi-judicial disciplinary action fails where the charge loses its foundation and unexplained delay causes prejudice.

Disciplinary proceedings against an officer for an order passed in a quasi-judicial capacity are not barred merely because the act was judicial in nature, and delay by itself is not always fatal. The proceeding, however, requires a continuing and credible basis for the charge. Where the alleged misconduct rested on deletion of an addition in an assessment appeal, and that underlying appellate order was later interfered with and remitted for fresh decision, the foundation of the charge was materially weakened. An unexplained delay in issuing the charge memorandum, especially near retirement, was treated as prejudicial and the disciplinary action was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge memorandum issued against the respondent for his order passed in a quasi-judicial capacity could be sustained in the facts of the case, particularly in view of the subsequent remand of the underlying tax dispute and the delay in initiating disciplinary action.

Analysis: The writ petition concerned disciplinary action against a quasi-judicial authority for an appellate order alleged to have been passed hastily. It was accepted that disciplinary proceedings are not barred merely because the officer acted in a quasi-judicial capacity, and that delay alone is not invariably fatal. However, the material basis for the charge was the respondent's deletion of a large addition in the assessment appeal. That foundation weakened when the appellate order in the underlying matter was later interfered with and the dispute was remitted for fresh decision, thereby diluting the allegation of misconduct. The Court also noted that the department was aware of the impugned order for years but issued the charge memorandum only much later, near retirement, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. In these circumstances, the delay caused prejudice and the disciplinary action lacked a sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The charge memorandum was liable to be set aside and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings against an officer for acts done in a quasi-judicial capacity may be sustained only where the charge is supported by a continuing and credible basis and the delay in initiation has not caused prejudice; where the foundational premise of the charge is substantially eroded and the delay is unexplained, the proceedings can be quashed.

---