S. Govinda Menon vs The Union Of India & Anr on 2 February, 1967
In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India & Anr. [AIR 1967
SC 1274], the appellant, an ICS officer was Commissioner of
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. He disposed of
grant of lease of the endowment lands contrary to the
statute. He was charged for misconduct. He questioned the
show cause notice by filing a writ petition. Pending writ
petition, the enquiry officer submitted his report.
Thereafter, he amended and writ of prohibition was sought.
The principal contention raised therein was that his order
was quasi judicial. Mathew, J. as he then was negatived the
contention while S.V. Pillai, J. accepted the contention
that quasi judicial decision having become final and
conclusive, the conduct of quasi judicial orders cannot be
the subject of an enquiry for misconduct. On reference,
Govinda Menon, J. agreed with Justice Mathew and dismissed
the writ petition. When appeal was filed, this Court held
that although the Commissioner acted as an authority under
the Hindu Religious & Endowment Acts and was not subject to
administrative control of the Government as a master and
servant, still the proceeding for such acts can be
instituted against him, if there is prima facie material to
show recklessness or misconduct on his part. It is not
necessary that the appellant should have committed the
alleged act or omission in the course of discharge of his
duties as a servant of the Government in order that it may
form the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. If the
act or omission is such as to reflect on the reputation of
the officer or his integrity or good faith or devotion to
duty, there is no reason why disciplinary proceeding should
not be taken against him for that act or omission relating
to an activity in regard to which there is no actual master
and servant relationship. To put it differently, this Court
said that the test is not whether the act or omission was
committed by the appellant in the course of his discharge of
his duties as servant of the Government. The test is whether
the act or omission has some reasonable connection with the
nature and condition of his service or whether the act or
omission has cast any reflection upon the reputation of the
member of the service for doubting integrity or devotion to
duty as a public servant.