JACOB JOHN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. He challenges Ext. P4 memo of charges and Ext. P6 order issued finalising the action against the petitioner. In reply to Ext. P4 memo of charges, petitioner submitted detailed explanation. Government considered his contentions and passed Ext. P6 order imposing a minor penalty of barring 2 increments with cumulative effect, after having considered the whole matter in detail and findings that the charges raised against the petitioner had been proved. The allegation contained in Ext. P4 memo of charges is that the petitioner acted against the interest of the revenue and he failed to discharge his duties honestly and sincerely. While discharging the duties as an Appellate Assistant Commissioner, certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner. This was detected by the Deputy Commissioner. The irregularities were of grave nature. The order passed by the petitioner was set aside in the second appeal. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to carry out the directions of the Board of Revenue and denied the legitimate right of the Department to defend the case decided by him. He had failed to discharge his official duties honestly. It was based on such allegations that the petitioner was proceeded against. In Ext. P6 it was found that the allegations were proved. Consequently, a minor penalty was imposed. All the necessary procedure to impose a minor penalty had been followed.

(2.) The petitioner challenges Ext P6 mainly on the reason that he was acting in a quasi judicial capacity and therefore, following the decision in Kesavan v. State of Kerala ( 1989 (1) KLT 135 ) quasi judicial authority shall not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for any error or irregularity on their part. Therefore, Ext P6 is unsustainable in law. He submits that it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. He has a further contention that withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, has the effect of reducing him to a lower stage in the time scale. Therefore, before imposing such penalty, Public Service Commission should have been consulted.

(3.) It is true that the petitioner was acting in a quasi judicial capacity. But that does not clothe him with immunity from disciplinary action. This decision in Kesavan v. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 135) was with respect to order by Government to realise the loss caused to Government. It was held in that case as follows: