https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311157 Disciplinary action against a quasi-judicial authority is not justified by every erroneous decision, error of judgment, or mere negligence in adjudication. The controlling distinction is between a simple mistake made in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions and culpable misconduct involving extraneous considerations, undue favour, quid pro quo, or improper motive. A bare allegation that the authority acted negligently or recklessly in passing an order, without any charge of outside influence or favouritism, does not amount to misconduct under the relevant conduct rules and cannot sustain disciplinary proceedings. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:02:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311157 Disciplinary action against a quasi-judicial authority is not justified by every erroneous decision, error of judgment, or mere negligence in adjudication. The controlling distinction is between a simple mistake made in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions and culpable misconduct involving extraneous considerations, undue favour, quid pro quo, or improper motive. A bare allegation that the authority acted negligently or recklessly in passing an order, without any charge of outside influence or favouritism, does not amount to misconduct under the relevant conduct rules and cannot sustain disciplinary proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311157