1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Bhopal Singh Nahar. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2693/2005 ... Date of Order: May 29, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate, for respondents. BY THE COURT: The petitioner, while discharging duties of Assessing Authority under the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act 1964” hereinafter) assessed the land and building tax under an order dated 27-3-1999 pertaining to the land and building of M/s. Gaurav Estate Private Limited, Udaipur. At the first instance, the Director, Urban Land-cum-Building Tax, Rajasthan, by the communication dated 3-10-2001 instructed the petitioner to submit an explanation for causing loss of 11.69 lac by making a undervalued assessment of tax. The petitioner, in respondent to the said communication, submitted a reply demanding certain documents. The respondents then served a memorandum under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services 2 (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 upon the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner caused a loss of revenue of Rs.11,68,610/- to the State Government by making a wrong evaluation of a commercial plot of land pertaining to M/s. Gaurav Estate Private Limited. Being aggrieved by initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the memorandum referred above, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. An important fact mentioned in the writ petition and admitted by the respondents is that while exercising powers under Section 15-B of the Act of 1964, the assessment of M/s. Gaurav Estate Private Limited was reopened and fresh assessment orders were passed on 30-1-2001. The orders passed by reopening of assessment under Section 15-B of the Act of1964 came to be reversed in a revision petition decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur by the order dated 5-12- 2002 exercising powers under Section 19 of the act of 1964. The Commissioner, Udaipur affirmed the order passed the petitioner in the capacity of Assessing Authority on 27-3-1999. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, while working as the Assessing Authority was exercising quasi-judicial powers and any error while exercising the quasi-judicial powers, if it is not an out- come of malafides or of corrupt practice, then the same does not 3 constitute any misconduct. To support the contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1999 SC 2881, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “43. If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premises rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g. In the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independence functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi judicial powers are conferred on administration authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhabited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings.” In the instant matter also, there is no allegation upon the petitioner that he made an undervalued assessment as a corrupt practice or with some extraneous influence or with an intention to extend unauthorised benefit to M/s. Gaurav Estate Private Limited. The petitioner, at the most, could be termed to be guilty of committing a judicial error. Such an error does not 4 constitute a misconduct under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Such type of errors are open for judicial review. In the case in hand, the order passed by the petitioner as the Assessing Authority has already been reviewed and stood affirmed by the Revisional Authority, therefore, the allegation for causing loss to the State Government is also not sustainable. In view of whatever stated above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. The same is, therefore, allowed. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the memorandum dated 1-1-2005 (Annx.6) stands quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs