Appeal Nos
185 187 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 581991 of the Orissa Ad ministrative Tribunal Bhubaneshwar in OA No 679 of 1988
246 BA Mohanty A Mariarputham Mrs Aruna Mathur Raju Rama chandran and AK Panda for the Appellants
Shanti Bhushan Prashant Bhushan PN Misra P Gour RP Wadhwani and CN Sreekumar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN J
Leave granted in all the matters
All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since they are directed against the judgment and order dated August 5 1991 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bhubaneshwar in Original Application No 679 of 1988
Prakash Chandra Misra Respondent 1 in all these appeals was directly recruited to the Orissa State Forest Service Class 11 by the Orissa Public Service Commission in the year 1979
After completion of training for two years at Forest Service College Burnihat Assam he was appointed as an Assistant Conservator of Forests
He moved the Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority of the Forest Rangers who were members of Orissa Subordinate Forest Service and were promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests between his recruitment and the joining of service after training
According to first respondent the promotees who were promoted in the years 1981 and 1982 ought to have been assigned a place below him as per recruitment rules
The seniority of direct recruits vis a vis the promotees required to be decided on the basis of the Orissa Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules 1959
It was further urged that he was recruited in the year 1979 through Public Service Commission
He had to undergo training for two years and thereafter he was appointed in the year 1981
Therefore the short question was whether the respondent was to be assigned seniority from the year 1979 the year of recruitment or from the year 1981 the year of appointment
The Tribunal observed that Rule 9a of 1959 Rules read with Rule 6 would point out that the promotee officers were to be on probation for a period of two years like the direct recruits
Such direct recruits were also sent for training to the Forest Training College
The 1959 Rules used the word recruited  the 1984 Rules used the word appointed
These words must be assigned proper meaning
247 Inasmuch as the direct recruits were to be treated as seniors to promotees en bloc  the first respondent must be treated as a recruit of 1979 and ought to be treated as senior to promotees
The next question that came up for consideration was as to the application of quota rule
On this the Tribunal held that both in the 1959 Rules as well as in the 1984 Rules the promotees and direct recruits will be in the proportion of 13rd and 23rd
In the present case 1959 Rules being applicable there was no doubt that promotees have substantially encroached upon the quota for direct recruits
In view of that promotions which have been made more than the quota prescribed in the rules have to be either adjusted against future vacancies in the promotion quota or reverted
Such promotions beyond the prescribed quota are illegal
In view of these findings the Tribunal held that the first respondent was entitled to be treated i as a direct recruit of 1979 and ii he shall be confirmed and promoted on the basis of being direct recruit of 1979
His seniority was to be fixed on the basis of being a direct recruit of 1979 within the 23rd quota for direct recruits
These directions were to be implemented within six months from the date of the order
On these terms the petition of the first respondent came to be allowed
Aggrieved by this judgment SLP C No 615 of 1992 has come to be preferred by Prafulla Kumar Swain a promotee Respondent No 91 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal
SLP Civil No 1604 of 1992 has come to be preferred by Bijay Kishore Mohanty and 10 others respondents before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal
The State has preferred SLP C No 4186 of 1992
Mr Raiu Ramachandran learned counsel for the appellant in SLP C No 1604 of 1992 would submit that the first respondent was selected for undergoing superiod Forest Service Course at the Forest Service College Burnihat Assam in the year 1979
Having regard to the terminology of the order wh ich says he was selected it cannot be held that he could lay a claim to the post
The Orissa Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules 1959 govern the case in question
The Tribunal had gone wrong in its interpretation of the various 248 rules
First of all it is incorrect to hold that they are merely administrative instructions
On the contrary they are rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India as a result of which they have statutory force
Having held that both the direct recruits as well as the promotees undergo probation for a period of two years properly speaking the period of training for the direct recruits could not count as service
That is precisely what is stated in clause c of Regulation 12
If under the said Regulation the appointment to service is to commence only after the successful completion of training there is no justification whatever to conclude that the date of recruitment could be the relevant date for the purposes of reckoning the seniority
Recruitment in the submission of the learned counsel would merely mean enlistment or selection
That is why Regulation 13 says the selected candidates
Even Rules 9 has not been appreciated in its proper perspective
As regards the ratio of 23rd and 13rd between direct recruits and promotees the relevant rule that is applicable is Rule 53
That sub rule contains a provision Save as otherwise decided by Government
If therefore it has been otherwise provided by the Government this ratio of 23rd and 13rd does not apply
In other words there is overriding power vested in the Government
Hence the ratio is flexible and contemplates a departure whenever the Government otherwise decides
Here again the Tribunal has gone wrong
In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers  Association and Ors
vs State of Maharashtra and Ors
  at page 938 this Court has taken the view that where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating to the quota ordinarily a presumption should be raised that there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule
In any event the placement of Respondents 42 to 94 as per Civil List corrected upto 1982 was published in the year 1985 by the State Government
They are the promotees from amongst the various Rangers in Subordinate Service Class 11 as Assistant Conservator of Forests in 1980
This was at a time when the first respondent was undergoing training at Burnihat Assam
If really therefore the gradation list was published as early as 1985 there is absolutely no justification for the first respondent to approach in the year 1988
The judgment of the Tribunal has resulted in unsettling the settled matters
For these reasons it is prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be reversed
Mr AK Panda learned counsel for the State adopts the arguments 249 of Mr Raju Ramchandran learned counsel for the appellant
Mr Shanti Bhushan learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that recruitment is different from appointment
The definition of the service is contained under Rule 3e which states service means Orissa Forest Service Class 11
The service consists of Officers of Class 11 who are designated as Assistant Conservator of Forests
Rule 5c talks of recruitment to Class II
In sub rule a a reference is made to Regulation
What is contemplated hereunder is nothing more than the competitive examination prescribed under Regulation
Therefore Regulation 12 cannot be pressed into service
When an officer is recruited to Class 11 Service it does not mean that only from the date of appointment his seniority is to be reckoned
The very fact that his recruitment to the service is enough
The argument of the other side that the period of training will have to be excluded merely because both the direct recruits as well as the promotees undergo probation is untenable
The question is whether the direct recruits who are definitely superior could be pushed lower down to the promotees
In Service Law the direct recruits are always treated on a better footing than the promotees
Even though the relevant years of recruitment and promotion of persons involved are essentially of the years 1979 to 1984 yet it is 1984 Rules which will govern
Rule 24 of the 1984 Rules contains the repeal and saving clauses
That says that all the officers who were appointed prior to the repeal shall be deemed to have been appointed under the provisions of 1984 Rules
If that be so the aforesaid Explanation to Rule 16 must apply
Thus it is clear as on today the seniority by the 1984 Rules
The same has clearly provided that the date of appointment of direct recruits for the purposes of seniority will be deemed to be 2 years prior to the date of appointment to a working post
Since the normal period of training is 2 years this cannot but mean that the date of appointment of direct recruits for the purposes of seniority will be the date of selection
If the seniority is not a vested right it is well open to the Government to alter the same by making a departure from 1959 and providing for the same in the amended 1984 Rules
Learned counsel draws our attention to Indian Forest Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations of 1966
In the said Regulations Regulation 5 in its Explanation 11 states that in computing the period of 250 continuous service the period of training which an officer had undergone is to be included
If that is the intention for Grade I Service certainly a different intention cannot be spelt out under the 1959 Rules for Grade 11 Service
This is also evident when the 1984 Rules are looked at
There the rules clearly lay down in Rules 16 in its Explanation that the training period is not to be excluded
When rules specifically prescribe the quota as 13rd the Government cannot wriggle out of the situation that a saving provision had been made which is factually not so in this case
For this purpose the Government has relied upon the proceedings held on 5180 and 7180
The proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee will not constitute the Government order
All Government orders must be issued under the signature of the Minister according to the Rules of Business
In the present case no such order of the Minister regarding the alteration of quota is produced
The statutory rules lay down a clear legislative policy with regard to fixation of quota so that the brightest talent be made available for the service
As to what would be the consequence of violating a statutory rule has come to be laid down in Keshav Chandra Joshi and Ors
vs Union of India 1990 Supp 2 SCR 573 at page 586
That ratio squarely applies to the facts of the case
The point relating to laches was never argued before the Tribunal
Therefore the appellant cannot be allowed to argue at this stage
We will now proceed to set out the necessary factual background
The Orissa Public Service Commission through an advertisement dated 81064 invited applications from open market for admission of candidates to a competitive examination for selection to the posts of Orissa Forest Service Class II service
18 candidates were selected
They were sent for training at Indian Forest College Dehradun during the year 1965 67
Only on successful completion of the training they could be appointed to Class 11 Service
One of the candidates who was successful in completion of training and who received the posting order 23367 came forward with a writ petition before the Orissa High Court that he had been assigned in the list of gradation a rank junior to the promotees who were confirmed by Service Commission after the recruitment of the petitioner
The scope of 1959 Rules came up for consideration and the High Court concluded that the recruitment to Class II Service was complete only after successful 251 completion of two years  training in the Forest College
Relief was granted on that basis
That came up in appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal Nos
2051 52 of 1974 State of Orissa vs Manoranjan Rath  Ors
By an order dated 7th of January 1988 finding that there was no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court the appeals came to be dismissed
While the matter stood thus one of the directly recruited officers Prakash Chandra Misra respondent No1 filed a petition before the Tribunal challenging the seniority
He contended that the promotees who were promoted in the year 1981 82 ought to have been assigned a place lower than him as per recruitment rules
Two main contentions were 1
His services should be reckoned from the date of recruitment itself and not from the date of actual appointment
Therefore the exclusion of the period of two years  training for the purposes of reckoning the seniority was illegal
The promotees had been appointed in excess of the quota which the rules had prescribed
There is no specific order of Government providing otherwise
The Tribunal accepted these contentions and held that the petitioner before it being a direct recruit of the year 1979 must be treated as such and had to be confirmed and promoted on the basis of being a direct recruit of the year 1979
This should be done within the 23rd quota for direct recruits
Accordingly the petition was allowed
It is under these circumstances special leave petitions have come to be preferred
Having regard to the arguments two points arise for our determination 1 Whether the direct recruits are to be considered as recruited in the year in which they were selected by the Service Commission and sent for training into the Forest College or in the year in which they were actually appointed to a working post on completion of training 2 Whether there was a quota fixed for promotees in the Orissa Forest Service during the relevant years
Even at the outset we may point out that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the Orissa Service Class 11 Recruitment Rules of 1959 are mere administrative instructions
On the contrary these rules were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and they are 252 statutory in character
Section 3e of 1959 Rules says Service means the Orissa Forest Service Class II
Rule 5 reads as under 5
1 Recruitment to Class II service shall be made aby direct recruitment on the result of competitive examination as per Regulation I appended to this rule bby promotion as per the Regulation 11 appended to this rule governing promotions to the Orissa Forest Service Class II 2Government shall decide from time to time the number of vacancies in class II Service to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion
3Save as otherwise decided by Government number of posts of the service filled up by promotion shall not exceed one third of the total number of such posts in the cadre
 Rule 9 is as follows 9a When officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment during the same year the directly recruited members shall be considered senior to the promoted members irrespective of their dates of appointment
bIn case of promotion seniority may be determined in accordance with the positions the promoted officers held in the recommendation of Public Service Commission made according to merit
cIn case of direct recruitment seniority may be determined according to the achievements in the examination in the Forest College
 Besides these rules there are also Regulations dealing with direct recruitment
It may be stated that the Regulations prescribe the condition of eligibility Regulation 12 educational qualification Regulation I6 written test by means of a competitive examination Regulation 18a and 253 a viva voice test
The candidates are to be summoned for viva voice test on securing the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the Commission
Thereafter the Commission prepares a list of successful candidates provided they are found fit in the physical test as prescribed under Regula tion 15
The fist of successful candidates is to be forwarded to the Government for approval
Regulation 12 is important for our purposes
Under that Regulation the finally selected candidates are required to undergo two years training
During the period of pendency a consolidated monthly allowance of Rs 150 as stipend is paid
Under clause b of that Regulation he is required to execute a bond provided for in Appendix A Regulation 12c in unmistakable terms says the period of training will not count as service under Government
Such service will count only from the date of appointment to the service after successful completion of the course of training
Emphasis supplied
We must give full meaning and effect to this Regulation
At this stage we will proceed to decide as to the meaning and effect of the words recruitment and appointment
The term recruitment connotes and clearly signifies enlistment acceptance selection or approval for appointment
Certainly this is not actual appointment or posting in service
In contradistinction the word appointment means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office
Recruitment is just an initial process
That may lead to eventual appointment in the service
But that cannot tantamount to an appointment
No doubt Rule 5 talks of recruitment to Class II Service
We consider these are two sources of recruitment
Nowhere in the Recruitment Rules of 1959 it is specified that the services of a direct recruit under the Government shall be reckoned from the date of selection in the competitive examination
On the contrary Regulation 12c is very clear that the period of training is not to be reckoned as Government service
It is admitted before us that after the successful completion of training when the appointment order is issued the direct recruits are put on probation
Similar is in the case of the promotees
Both of them undergo probation
Therefore in the light of these provisions it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the direct recruits that their seniority must be reckoned from the date of their recruitment
This is why Mr Shanti Bhushan learned counsel for the direct 254 recruits respondents would urge that 1984 Rules would govern
Rule 16 in Explanation provides thus Explanation For the purpose of clause a the year of appointment of direct recruits shall be deemed to be the year arrived at after deducting two years from the date of successful completion of the training in the Forest College He would urge that in view of Rule 24 all the appointments must be deemed to have been made under these Rules
Rule 24 reads thus 24
All rules and orders corresponding to these rules and in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby repealed Provided that nothing in these rules shall be construed as affecting or invalidating the appointments already made or orders issued in accordance with the provisions of any rules or orders in force immediately before the commencement of these rules and that all such appointments and orders shall continue in force and shall as far as may be be deemed to have been made and issued under the appropriate provisions of these rules Provided further that Government may by order direct that any of the provisions of these rules shall not apply to the Officers already appointed under the rules and orders in force immediately before the commencement of these rules or shall apply to them with such modifications as the Government may specify in that order  Therefore according to him the benefit of Explanation to Rule 16 quoted above must apply
We find it impossible to accept this contention for the following reasons 1Since the appointments in question have been made under 1959 Rules 1984 Rules will be inapplicable
2The 1984 Rules came into force only when they were published in the Official Gazette on December 21 1984
255 3
Explanation under Rule 16 is a substantive provision
Therefore it cannot be retrospective
As regards Rule 24 the proviso clearly states that the Rules cannot be construed as affecting or invalidating the appointments already made
Therefore if any right has been acquired or any privilege had accrued that would remain unaltered
Therefore these appointments which are governed by the 1959 Rules will continue notwithstanding the repeal
Clauses a and e of Section 6 of the also point this position 6
Effect of repeal Where this Act or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made then unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not a revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect or b c d e effect any investigation legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right privilege obligation liability penalty forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid
 Coming to the deeming clause that creates a legal fiction the Court is to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created
In Justice GP Singh Principles of Statutory Interpretation Fourth Edition 1988 at page 208 it is stated thus As was observed by James LJ  When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done which in fact and in truth was not done the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what person the statutory fiction is to be resorted to  When a legal fiction is created  stated SR Das J for what purposes one is led to 256 ask at once is it so created Therefore by the operation of deeming clause it only enables appointments made under 1959 Rules to be continued under 1984 Rules
Certainly by the repeal of 1959 Rules it cannot mean all those appointments cease
Nor again the substantive provision of Rule 16 as stated above
Would govern
Therefore Rule 24 has no application
Thus we conclude that the seniority of direct recruits will have to be reckoned only from the date of appointment and not from the date of recruitment
The gradation list which was impugned by the first respondent before the Tribunal was prepared in pursuance of the order of this Court read with the aforementioned judgment of the Orissa High Court and this is so stated in a letter dated 4th January 1989 written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa Forest Fisheries and Animal Husbandry Department Bhubaneshwar to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Orissa Bhubaneshwar Annexure II to the Special Leave Petition in SLP C No 1604 of 1992
That this gradation list had been framed upon the aforesaid basis also does not appear to have been brought to the attention of the tribunal
The gradation list has been in operation over several years
We see no reason to unsettle the settled position
In this behalf we draw support from the judgment of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers  Association vs State of Maharashtra and others
  We may also note that though the same question was before this Court a little before the petition was made by the first respondent before the Tribunal no effort was made by the first respondent to intervene and place before this Court his point of view
It is inconceivable that he would not have known that the same question was before this Court
Turning to the quota rule the records reveal that the Government had clearly taken a decision to increase the number of posts to be filled up by promotion in excess of the 13rd of total posts in the cadre on administrative grounds connected with nationalisation of Kendu Leaf Trade in 1972 73 in the interest of public due to non availability of direct candidates trained in the Indian Forest College Dehradun
It is not correct to say that Government have decided that the quota of direct recruitment which will be encroached upon by the promotees will be released as and when direct recruits are available
In fact it was decided that the 4 direct 257 candidates who were by then under diploma course Training in forestry at Dehradun in the event of their coming out successful during 1974 from the training College may be appointed and in consequence the junior most promotee officers whom were appointed on ad hoc basis as aforesaid pending concurrence of Orissa Public Service Commission will have to be reverted to make room for them
No promotion to Orissa Forest Service Class 11 could be made on regular basis without obtaining concurrence of the Orissa Public Service Commission as per Clause 2h of Regulation 11 appended to the Orissa Forest Class II Recruitment Rules 1959
In view of the urgency to implement the Kendu Leaf Scheme in 1973 39 Forest Rangers were appointed to Class 11 Forest Service on an ad hoc  basis for a period of six months or till concurrence of the Commission is received for their final appointment
The 39 Forest Ranger had already been promoted to Orissa Forest Service Class 11 on regular basis on the recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission
In view of this it is not correct to say in that the decision taken by Government for promoting excess promotees in the year 1972 was only to promote them on an ad hoc basis within that quota
Hence to contend that the promotees would obviously have to yield to direct recruits who came in subsequently within their quota and would consequently also not be eligible for seniority above direct recruits is untenable
We may also add that there were earlier proceedings in Transfer Application No147 of 1986 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal
The decision was rendered on 3787
SLP C No 1624 of 1988 filed against the said decision was dismissed by this Court on 18189
There was also an application OJC No 588 of 1972 before the Orissa High Court in Manoranjan Rath vs State of Orissa and others
The decision was rendered on 10674
Against the said decision Civil Appeal Nos
2051 52 of 1974 were preferred to this Court which were dismissed on 7188
The Tribunal in the above judgment had held on perusal of the departmental file that the Government had taken decision to increase the number of posts to be filled up by promotion on administrative grounds
This was necessitated because of the nationalisation of Kendu Leaf Trade
Action to fill up the posts by promotion of Forest Rangers in excess of 13rd of the total posts in the cadre was taken in pursuance of the decision of the Government
Though the actual decision of the Government is not produced before us yet the proceedings of the meetings of the Departmental Committee held on 5180 and 7180 to select Forest Rangers suitable for promotion took note of 258 Rule 53 which contains the saving clause
Save as otherwise decided by Government number of posts of the service filled up by promotion shall not exceed one third of the total number of such posts in the cadre
 These proceedings speak volumes
The proceedings were given effect to by promotions
Such promotions in excess of the prescribed quota had to be made since no more directly recruited candidates were available during that year
The Government did not want its work to be hampered by allowing the posts were to remain vacant
While seeking the concurrence of Orissa Public Service Commission to the decision taken by the Departmental Committee held on 5180 and 7180 the proceedings of the Committee explain the circumstances under which the Government decision was taken
From this point of view we find the decision in Keshav Chandra Joshi s case supra has no application here
Therefore the promotions given in excess of 13rd quota are valid
There is no justification to push down the promotees in seniority
The promotion in excess of the prescribed quota was necessitated by the exigencies and in the interest of the public
It is supported by a conscious decision of the Government which is permissible under Rule 53
Therefore we reject the arguments advanced on behalf of the direct recruits in this regard
A reference was made to the Indian Forest Service Appointment by Promotion Regulations 1966 particularly Regulation 5
It is also urged that from the post of Class 11 promotion is to be made to Class 1
We are of the view that since the appointments in question are regulated under Orissa Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules the said Regulations of 1966 have no application
Further as pointed out above the Orissa Rules were framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and have statutory and binding force
Now comes the proverbial last straw on the camel s back
There have been laches on the part of the direct recruits in seeking the remedy
When the list was published in 1985 nothing prevented them to approach earlier
This is the point to be put against them
That this position was known to the direct recruit Prakash Chandra Mishra is clear from paragraph 18 of his petition before the Tribunal
It 259 reads thus
Therefore placement of Respondent Nos
42 to 94 as per Civil List corrected upto 1982 published in the year 1985 by the State Government who are promotees from amongst the Forest Rangers in Subordinate Service to Class II Service as Assistant Conservator of Forests in the year 1980 when this applicant was undergoing training at Burnihat Assam is patently illegal and an act without jurisdiction by the State Government of Orissa  Emphasis supplied We do not want to unsettle settled matters which will lead to several complications
In view of the foregoing discussion we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal
The appeals will stand allowed
However there shall be no order as to costs
VPR Appeals allowed


Summary:
The respondent while working as Income Tax Officer completed certain assessments during the year 1982 83
A charge memorandum was served on him proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Classification Central Appeal Rules 1965
A statement of article of charge was framed against the respondent
The substance of the charge was the completion of nine assessments in an irregular manner hastily with a view to confer undue favour upon the assessees and by such act he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of government servant
The details relating to misconduct or misbehaviour of the respondent were furnished and he was charged for violating the provisions of Rules 3 1 i 3 1 ii and 3 1 iii of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964
In support of the allegations he was also supplied with the necessary documents
Against the memorandum the respondent preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings and to consider his case for promotion on merits without resort to the sealed cover procedure
On 821991 the Tribunal directed the appellant Union of India to open the sealed cover and to implement the recommendations of the 297 Departmental Promotion Committee to promote the respondent to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax if he was found fit for promotion within two weeks from the date of order
Later on 2231991 the Tribunal allowed the respondent s application holding that the action taken by the respondent officer was quasi judicial and should not have formed the basis of disciplinary action
The Tribunal also made its earlier order dated 821991 absolute
The Union of India preferred the present appeals by special leave against the orders of the Tribunal contending that in a case where disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent the procedure of opening the sealed cover should not have been resorted to
Otherwise it would amount to putting a premium on misconduct  that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the ratio of the order in CA Nos
4986 8790 that as the respondent was charged for violation of Rules 31i 31ii and 31iii of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964 immunity from the disciplinary action could not be claimed
The respondent contended that the opening of the sealed cover was correctly ordered because on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee met in March 1989 no charge sheet was served on the respondent that as the respondent was exercising quasi judicial functions orders made by him if were wrong the remedy by way of an appeal or revision could be resorted to that if in every case of wrong order disciplinary action was resorted to it would jeopardize the exercise of judicial functions and the immunity attached to the officer while exercising quasi judicial powers would be lost
On the question whether an authority enjoys immunity from disciplinary proceedings with respect to matters decided by him in exercise of quasi judicial functions allowing the appeals this Court HELD  101
The disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases  i Where the Officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty  ii if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty iii if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a govern 298 ment servant 311E F iv if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers v if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party vi if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however small the bribe may be
311G H The instances above catalogued are not exhaustive
For a mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not falling under the above enumerated instances disciplinary action is not warranted
Each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated
312A B 102
There is a great reason and justice for holding in such cases that the  disciplinary action could be taken
It is one of the cardinal principles of administration of justice that it must be free from bias of any kind
311B 103
The officer who exercises judicial or quasi judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a judge
311C 104
In the present case this Court Is not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer
The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act
311D 105
In the case on hand article of charge clearly mentions that the nine assessments covered by the article of charge were completed i in an irregular manner ii in undue haste and iii apparently with a view to confer unduefavour upon the assessees concerned
310A B Therefore the allegation of conferring undue favour is very much 299 there and certainly disciplinary action is warranted
310C Govinda Menon vs Union of India   Thayre vs The London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company and Thompson vs British Berna Motor Lorries Limited at page 188 referred to
Union of India  Ors
vs AN Saxena   explained
SLP C Nos
2635 3689 in CA No 4986 8790 distinguished