UNION OF INDIA Vs. DULICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The issue in this appeal is whether disciplinary action could be taken against the respondent employee on the ground that the employee had been found to be grossly negligent while discharging quasi-judicial functions. We need not go into the factual aspect of the dispute except to record that the respondent had been punished by the disciplinary authority on the ground that he had negligently allowed claims for refund to an applicant on three different occasions. The punishment imposed was stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It may also be noticed at this stage that there is no challenge to the fact that the disciplinary authority had complied with all the necessary procedures for passing the impugned order. However, the action of the disciplinary authority was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings would lie against 'an officer discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions unless there was an element of moral turpitude. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the finding of the gross negligence on the part of the respondent. But it was held, relying upon the decision of this Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar V/s. Union of India that disciplinary proceedings would not lie against the officer discharging quasi-judicial functions unless it were established that the officer concerned had obtained an undue advantage thereby or in connection therewith.

(3.) The decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellants before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that since no ulterior motive was alleged against the respondent, the Tribunal was correct in quashing the proceedings against the respondent.