Case: Union of India and Others Vs. K. K. Dhawan

2. The respondent, while working as Income Tax Officer, Muktsar during the year 1982-83 completed certain assessments. A charge-memorandum dated May 2, 1989 was served on him to the effect it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. A statement of article of charge framed against him was to the following effectStatement of article of charge framed against Shri K. K. Dhawan, A Group A now posted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, BombayArticle IShri K. K. Dhawan, while functioning as I.T.O. "A" Ward, Muktsar during 1982-1983 completed nine assessments in the caseM/s Chananna Automobiles(2) M/s Gupta Cotton Industries(3) M/s Ajay Cotton Industries(4) M/s National Rice Mills(5) M/s Tek Chand Buchram(6) M/s Tilak Cotton Industries(7) M/s Chandi Ram Behari Lal(8) M/s Phuman Mal Chandi Ram, and(9) M/s Modernan irregular manner, in undue haste and apparently with a view to conferring undue favour upon the assesses concernedBy his above acts Shri Dhawan failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating provisions of Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964This was accompanied by a statement of imputation of his misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the article of charge framed against him3. In each of the nine cases of the assessees above-referred to, the details relating to misconduct or misbehaviour were furnished. Therefore, it was charged that the respondent had violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The necessary documents in support of these allegations were also enclosed4. Against the said memorandum dated May 2, 1989, the respondent preferred an application O.A. No. 2540 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi praying for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings and to consider his case for promotion on merits without resort to the sealed cover procedure5. By its order dated February 8, 1991, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi directed the respondent Union of India to open the sealed cover immediately and implement the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee insofar as it pertained to the petitioner and to promote him to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, if he was found fit for promotion, within two weeks from the date of said order6. Thereafter, by a detailed judgment dated March 22, 1991 (K. K. Dhawan v. Union of India, 1993 (23) ATC 19 (ND), the Tribunal relying on SLP (C) Nos. 2635-36 of 1989 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4986-87 of 1990, held that the action taken by the officer was quasi-judicial and should not have formed the basis of disciplinary action. Therefore, the application was allowed and the impugned memorandum dated May 2, 1989 was quashed. The earlier order dated February 8, 1991 to open the sealed cover and implement the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee was made absolute7. Aggrieved by these two orders, the present special leave petitions have been

Court's reasoning:
23. We do not think, where to buttress the ultimate conclusion this observation was made, that could ever be construed as laying down the law that in no case disciplinary action could be taken if it pertains to exercise of quasi-judicial powers24. Then, we come to Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1991 (Ed. : Union of India v. R. K. Desai, to which one of us (Mohan, J.) was a party. The ruling in this case turned on the peculiar facts. Nevertheless, what we have to carefully notice is the observation as under : (SCC p. 51, paraa reading of the charges and the allegations in detail learned Additional Solicitor General has fairly stated that they do not disclose any culpability nor is there any allegation of taking any bribe or of trying to favour any party in making the orders granting relief in respect of which misconduct is alleged against the respondent."The above extract will clearly indicate that if there was any culpability or any allegation of talking bribe or trying to favour any party in exercise of quasi-judicial functions, then disciplinary action could be taken. We find our conclusion is supported by the following observations found in the said order at page 3 : (SCC pp. 51-52, paraour view, the allegations are merely to the effect that the refunds were granted to unauthorised persons and this was done in disregard to the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. There is no allegation, however, either express or implied that these actions were taken by the respondent actuated by any corrupt motive or to oblige any person on account of extraneous considerations. In these circumstances, merely because such orders of refunds were made, even assuming that they were erroneous or wrong, no disciplinary action could be taken as the respondent was discharging quasi-judicial function. If any erroneous order had been passed by him the correct remedy is by way of an appeal or revision to have such orders set aside."In the case on hand, article of charge clearly mentions that the nine assessments covered by the article of charge werein an irregular manner(ii) in undue haste, and(iii) apparently with a view to confer undue favour upon the assesseesThis dictum fully supports the stand of the appellant. 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 kind28. Certainly, therefore, 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. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are 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. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the followingWhere 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 Government servant;(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 because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is