Quasi-judicial misconduct requires more than a debatable assessment order; plausible reasoning defeats disciplinary action.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Disciplinary action against an Assessing Officer for granting exemption while exercising quasi-judicial powers was unsustainable because the charge alleged only a faulty assessment, departure from the Department's earlier stand, and revenue prejudice. The HC held that misconduct requires more than an erroneous or debatable decision and must reflect lack of integrity, want of devotion to duty, mala fides, recklessness, conscious disregard of law, or undue favour. The officer had relied on earlier ITAT orders, relevant precedent, and changed facts, so his view was plausible and reasoned. In the absence of evidence of ill intention or personal gain, the charge-sheet and penalty order were rightly quashed, and the writ petition was dismissed.....