https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117349 A quasi-judicial revenue officer is not exposed to disciplinary action merely because an order is erroneous; misconduct requires material showing mala fides, bias, undue favouritism, recklessness, corrupt motive or culpable negligence. On the material described, Charges 2, 3 and 4 failed because they rested only on the officer's adjudicatory decisions and lacked any factual foundation of tainted conduct, while Charge 1 was allowed to remain because the record contained some material suggesting mala fide intention, including alleged discussion with a party. The stated ratio is that an erroneous quasi-judicial order, by itself, does not constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:54:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117349 A quasi-judicial revenue officer is not exposed to disciplinary action merely because an order is erroneous; misconduct requires material showing mala fides, bias, undue favouritism, recklessness, corrupt motive or culpable negligence. On the material described, Charges 2, 3 and 4 failed because they rested only on the officer's adjudicatory decisions and lacked any factual foundation of tainted conduct, while Charge 1 was allowed to remain because the record contained some material suggesting mala fide intention, including alleged discussion with a party. The stated ratio is that an erroneous quasi-judicial order, by itself, does not constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117349