SARADAMMA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income tax and Sales tax, was found guilty of 'gross negligence and dereliction of duty' by Ext. P5. The charge under Ext. P1 was that she did not achieve the quota of 385 appeals fixed for a period. In place of 385 appeals, only 22 were disposed of. To Ext. P1 charges, petitioner showed cause by Ext. P4. She pleaded mitigation. It was not her case, that the charge would not lie, as the acts complained of arose in the discharge of judicial duties, which is the case now.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was found guilty of acts performed by her in discharge of judicial or quasi judicial duties. Such matters, cannot form subject matter of a charge of misconduct, according to counsel. Reliance was placed on the decision in Union of India and others v. J. Ahmed ( AIR 1979 SC 1022 ) to support the contention. A charge of 'misconduct' was levelled in that case alleging 'lack of leadership, inaptitude, lack of foresight, lack of firmness and indecisiveness'. These are matters which relate to the mental make up of a person. The Supreme Court found that acts and omissions understood as misconduct in the rules, do not comprehend inefficiency or incompetence. In the instant case, dereliction of duty found, is not with reference to innate qualities of the official, nor with reference to matters falling in the exercise of decision making or application of judicial mind. Charge relates to violation of an administrative direction namely failure to adhere to a quota. Administrative directions could be issued to judicial or quasi judicial functionaries, without interfering with their judicial functions. Issue of such directions have no overtones, as far as the performance of such duties are concerned. The instructions in the instant case, have no bearing on the decision making process, expected of the petitioner. Nor, do the charges relate to the quality of judicial functioning of the petitioner.

(3.) At no point of time, petitioner had a case-until she came to this court that Government lacked jurisdiction to initiate action in respect of matters, forming subject of the charge. All that she pleaded was mitigation in Ext. P4. The authority did not accept the explanation of petitioner. I do not think that the finding reached by the authority is vitiated by errors manifest on the face of the record, meriting interference under Art.226. Besides, this is not a fit case for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this court. Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.