ORDER

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad {Ed.: Ramesh K. Desai v. Union of India, (1991) 18 ATC 675}. The respondent is an Income Tax Officer. By a memorandum dated March 23, 1988 the respondent Income Tax Officer was informed that the Commissioner of Income Tax proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was alleged that the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry was proposed to be held was set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge. By the said memorandum, the respondent was called upon to show cause why an inquiry should not be held against him. On July 7, 1988, the respondent submitted his reply to the show-cause notice denying any misconduct on his part. On July 11, 1988, the Commissioner of Income Tax appointed an inquiry authority officer to inquire into the charges.

2. The said show-cause notice and the appointment of Enquiry Officer was challenged by the respondent by a petition filed before the Tribunal. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the said show-cause notice.

3. It is common ground that the charges levelled against the respondent are in respect of his conduct in assessing certain assessees, i.e., in the course of exercise of his judicial or quasi-judicial functions. On a 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 only paragraph to which the learned Additional Solicitor General drew our attention was paragraph 6 of the statement of imputations which runs as follows:

"Shri R.K. Desai also issued refunds amounting to Rs 26,641 in the cases referred to above to the Indian agents of the masters of ships. In fact, these agents were not authorised to receive the refund orders, nor were there any requests from the non-resident owners of the ships to issue such refunds to their agents. The refunds were therefore granted to unauthorised persons. Moreover, refunds in these cases were personally delivered to instructions."

4. In our 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 accountof 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 these circumstances, there is no dispute that the appeal may fail.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General has, however, submitted that there are certain observations in the impugned judgment which might lead to an impression that no disciplinary inquiry can be held at all under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1963 and it is strongly urged by him that such a view is not sustainable in law.

6. In this connection, we would like to point out in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in paragraph 17 it is pointed out as follows:

"Before parting with the case we must observe that whenever Government finds that revenue has been sacrificed irresponsibly or the circumstances in which doubts about corruption or other ulterior motives can be raised, immunity against disciplinary proceedings cannot be conferred on delinquent Government servants. Nor can any proposition be allowe