Back
Rules Setting Aside of Alone Does Not Trigger Disciplinary Action
Bench Comprises Justices Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai
The has firmly ruled that the mere setting aside of a by a does not, by itself, justify launching against the officer who passed it. The Court dismissed a petition seeking disciplinary action under the , stressing that of must be established before such steps can be taken.
The Origin of the Dispute
The petitioner, Meisheng Chiang, had previously instituted a suit under , which was decided on . Subsequently, the filed an appeal under before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda (respondent no. 4). On , the Commissioner passed an interim order admitting the appeal without condoning the delay and without hearing the other parties.
That interim order was challenged by the petitioner in an earlier writ petition, which the High Court allowed on . The Court set aside the order, noting that the Commissioner's father was the President of the appellant society, creating an undesirable . The appeal was transferred to the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gonda for fresh disposal.
Instead of pursuing the remanded proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ seeking a direction to the to initiate a departmental inquiry against the Commissioner under the .
Arguments for and Against Disciplinary Action
The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's action violated the fundamental duty of every member of the service to maintain integrity and devotion to duty. He contended that passing an order without hearing the opposite party and without proper amounted to warranting .
The respondents countered that the order was passed in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers vested in the Commissioner under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. They submitted that interference by a under could not automatically translate into disciplinary action. Citing the principle underlying the , they argued that if every order set aside by a superior forum invited , no authority could adjudicate or decide any controversy in .
Court's Analysis: Setting Aside Alone Not Enough
The High Court carefully examined the issue and concluded that no ground for interference existed. The bench observed that when the petitioner challenged the order dated in the earlier writ petition, he had the opportunity to allege or , but the court did not make any adverse observations against the Commissioner. Moreover, in a later writ petition, the petitioner himself sought and obtained the deletion of the Commissioner from the array of parties.
The Court held that a successful challenge to an order, whether for violation of natural justice or other , does not justify initiation of . Such directions can only be passed when there are establishing .
Key Observations from the Judgment
"We find that in case in any successful writ petition where an order of authority below is set aside it cannot result in initiation of merely because the authority concerned has passed an order which was contrary to law, in or had any other ."
"Unless and until it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the order was passed for extraneous consideration other than for upholding the law or which is malafide, are only one of the few circumstances which can be considered for being proceeded against the respondent no.4 under the Rules 1968 but even if while making such directions the has to circumspect and has to be sure of facts leading to the passing of such an order amounts to of the authority itself."
"We further find that unless and until there are clear cogent verifiable facts leading to as alleged, no directions for initiating under the Rules 1968 can be passed."
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed
The Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, holding that no material was placed on record to demonstrate that the Commissioner acted with any or . The judgment reinforces the principle that quasi-judicial officers are protected from merely because a superior court corrects their orders. The ruling serves as a reminder that disciplinary action must be grounded in concrete evidence of and cannot be used as a weapon for every legal error or procedural lapse.
