Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Ms. Dolly Saxena on 30 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 93(2001)DLT124, 2001(60)DRJ43
ORDER
Khan, (J) %07-31-2001
1. :Short question involved is whether a Quasi Judicial Authority could be subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Service Conduct Rules (SCR) on a mere charge of alleged negligence and recklessness in passing an adjudicatory order.
2. Respondent a Collector of Customs and Central Excise at the relevant time, was to adjudicate the cases under Central Excise Act. She is charged to have dropped proceedings against the assessed M/s J.K.Synthesis accused of evasion of customs duty of 1.21 crores or so. a charge sheet dated 28.1.1999 was issued to her charging her with negligence and recklessness in discharge of duties and contravening Rule 3 of Conduct Rules, 1964. She made representations against this but failed. She then filed OA No.2199/99 claiming that she could not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings on a charge of misconduct while exercising her quasi judicial functions. Petitioner opposed this on the plea that charge sheet could not be questioned at the threshold and that disciplinary proceedings could be taken for her negligence in the discharge of her duty causing loss to public revenue.
3. Tribunal, on consideration of the matter, examined Articles of charges and found that these related to her alleged recklessness and negligence only and did not charge her of any other misconduct for showing favor to the assesses. It also went a step further and dabbled in touching the correctness of the charges. It accordingly quashed the charge sheet placing reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in Nagarkar Vs. UOI (1997) 7 SCC 409 holding that mere charge of negligence was not enough to subject a judicial or quasi judicial Authority to disciplinary proceedings for passing a wrong adjudicatory order.
4. Petition challenges this on the ground that Tribunal was firstly incompetent to quash the charge-sheet and that its order ran counter to the law laid down by Apex Court in UOI & others Vs. K.K.Dhawan holding that a quasi judicial Authority could be subjected to disciplinary proceedings on a charge of negligence or reckless in the discharge of quasi judicial.
5. There is no dispute with the proposition that Tribunal could not examine the truth or otherwise of the charges in a disciplinary proceedings and quash the charge sheet for that at the threshold. In the present case Tribunal has touched the correctness of charges at places which may not sustain but that does not have any crucial importance for the outcome of this matter which required to be decided on a harmonious reconciliation of two judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhawan's and Nagarkar's case. In the first case Apex Court formulated a list of cases, though not exhaustive where disciplinary proceedings could be taken against officers while exercising quasi judicial powers on the premise that such a situation involved the conduct of an officer in the discharge of his/her duties and not the error or illegally committed while exercising quasi judicial powers. The list of such cases includes:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favor a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be.
6. In Nagarkar's case however the court crystalised it further to hold that charge of mere negligence in exercise of quasi judicial power would not constitute a misconduct to warrant a disciplinary action unless it was accompanied by a further charge of undue favor shown by the officer in dealing with the case. The Court noticed its judgment in Dhawan's case held:-
(40) When we talk of negligence in a quasi judicial adjudication, it is not negligence perceived as carelessness, inadvertence or omission but as culpable negligence. This is how this court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh Ex-Constable ((1992) 4 SC 54) interpreted 'misconduct' not coming within the purview of mere error in judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty. In the case of K.K.Dhawan (1993) 2 SC 56, the allegation was of conferring undue favor upon the assesses. It was not a lapse of negligence as such. In Upender Singh's case ((1994 (3) 357), the charge was that the gave illegal and improper directions to the assessing officer in order to unduly favor the assessed. Case of K.S.Swaminathan , was not where the respondent was acting in any quasi judicial capacity. This Court said that at the stage of framing of the charge the statement of facts and the charge-sheet supplied are required to be looked into by the Court to see whether they support the charge of the alleged misconduct."
(43). "If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law e.g. in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The entire system of administrative ad judication whereunder quasi judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favor because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings."
7. It is true that in the list of cases given in Dhawan's case a charge of negligence could also sustain a charge sheet against the quasi judicial Authority but it was required to be read in the facts of that case where the further charge was that officer had shown undue favor in the matter. This is how it was distinguished by the court in Nagarkar's case laying down that there must be something more alleged than a mere negligence flowing from a mistake of law to sustain the charge sheet against the quasi judicial Authority.
8. We respectfully follow the ratio and reasoning of the Supreme Court Judgment to hold a mere charge of negligence or recklessness against an officer in passing an adjudicatory order in exercise of quasi judicial functions unaccompanied by any further charge of extraneous considerations or quid pro quo in passing such order would not constitute a misconduct under the relevant rules to justify disciplinary proceedings against the quasi judicial Authority. The reason and rationale for this is not far to seek and is adequately brought out in the judgment supra.
9. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.