2019 (10) TMI 1596 - Tri - Indian Laws

Initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as regards the discharge of her functions in quasi judicial capacity - allegations contained in the charge memo prima facie justify the proposed action or not - HELD THAT - There is no prohibition as such against the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer in relation to discharge of quasi judicial functions, but it must be with utmost care and caution. The mere existence of a view different from the one taken by the officer in the course of adjudication, by itself, cannot be treated as an act of misconduct. There must exist adequate material, even at the stage of issuance of charge memo, which discloses the existence of ulterior motive, or dishonest intention on the part of the officer in deciding the matter in a particular way. Therefore, the first issue answered to the effect that the disciplinary authority in this case does have the power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the discharge of quasi judicial functions by the applicant also, subject to the rider that there must exist adequate material, even at the stage of issuance of charge memo, to disclose that the power has been misused for wrongful gains. The Hon ble Supreme Court, through a catena of judgments held that if the disciplinary proceedings pertain to the manner in which an officer has discharged his quasi judicial functions, the mere information is not adequate, and suspicion alone cannot constitute the basis - In the instant case, there is not even an allegation that the applicant resorted to any acts of dishonesty or wrongful gain. The whole edifice of the charge memo is built on the foundation of the so called hasty disposal of the appeal. Rest of the allegations are supplemental thereto. A perusal of the record, on the two principal and important aspects mentioned above, clearly demonstrates that the entire exercise does not accord with the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The charge memo was based solely upon the imagination. It is fairly well known that if a person vested with the power to alter the legal status of another, permits his imagination to work, it may take him to a level, which he may not have imagined at all. The executive powers are required to be exercised on the basis of objective and verifiable material, and not on the basis of surmises, presumptions and imaginations. The impugned charge memorandum is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of initiating disciplinary proceedings against an officer for actions taken in a quasi-judicial capacity.
2. Validity of the allegations in the charge memorandum against the applicant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings:

The primary issue is whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an officer for actions taken in a quasi-judicial capacity. The judgment notes that while there is no absolute prohibition against such proceedings, they must be initiated with "utmost care and caution." The Tribunal emphasizes that the existence of a different view from that taken by the officer does not constitute misconduct. There must be "adequate material" indicating misuse of power for wrongful gains at the stage of issuing the charge memo. The judgment references the Supreme Court's stance in *Union of India v A. N. Saxena* and *Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar* cases, which stress that mere errors in judgment do not warrant disciplinary action unless there is evidence of culpability or improper motives.

2. Validity of the Allegations in the Charge Memorandum:

The applicant, an IRS officer, was charged with misconduct related to her role as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in 2013. The charges included entering a collusive arrangement, undue haste in disposing of an appeal, and ignoring procedural norms. The Tribunal found that the allegations lacked factual basis and were speculative. The applicant's actions were consistent with directives from her superiors to expedite high-value appeals, as evidenced by correspondence urging prompt disposal. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's efforts were in line with administrative instructions and that the appeal had been pending since 2011 due to the appellant's lack of cooperation. The Tribunal concluded that the charge memo was based on "imagination" rather than objective evidence, failing to meet the standards set by the Supreme Court for initiating disciplinary proceedings against quasi-judicial actions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the OA, setting aside the charge memorandum, and ordered the opening of the sealed cover regarding the applicant's promotion. The judgment underscores the need for concrete evidence of misconduct when disciplining officers for quasi-judicial actions, aligning with precedents that protect the independence and integrity of quasi-judicial functions.