Quasi-judicial error of law alone does not amount to misconduct without prima facie proof of undue favour or corrupt motive.

A quasi-judicial excise officer is not liable to disciplinary action merely because an adjudication order allegedly reflects a wrong legal view or omits penalty. Disciplinary proceedings require prima facie material showing recklessness, dishonesty, corrupt motive, undue favour, culpable negligence, or other conduct unbecoming of a government servant. On the record described, the only basis was non-imposition of penalty while duty and confiscation were confirmed; that circumstance, without extraneous material, could at most indicate an error of law remediable in appeal and not misconduct. The charge-sheet was therefore held unsustainable and initiation of disciplinary proceedings improper.

---

---

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a quasi-judicial excise for allegedly showing favour by not imposing penalty in an adjudication order; and whether a mere error of law or exercise of discretion in the quasi-judicial order amounted to misconduct.

Analysis: The charge rested on the adjudicating authority's failure to impose penalty under Rule 173Q despite confirming duty and ordering confiscation. The legal position drawn from earlier decisions was that quasi-judicial officers are not immune from disciplinary action in every case, but such action is justified only where there is prima facie material showing recklessness, dishonesty, corrupt motive, undue favour, culpable negligence, or conduct unbecoming of a government servant. A mere wrong view of law, or an erroneous conclusion reached in the course of adjudication, is not enough by itself. The record disclosed no witness material or extraneous circumstance indicating that the officer acted to favour the assessee; the foundation was only that penalty was not levied. That circumstance could at most show a possible error of law, which is remediable in appeal, and not misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion: The charge-sheet could not be sustained and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was improper.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial officer cannot be proceeded against for misconduct on the basis of a mere error of law or non-imposition of penalty alone; disciplinary action requires prima facie material of extraneous consideration, undue favour, corrupt motive, or culpable misconduct beyond the correctness of the adjudicatory decision.

---