ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue in this appeal is whether disciplinary action could be taken against the respondent employee on the ground that the employee had been found to be grossly negligent which discharging quasi-judicial functions. We need not go into the factual aspect of the dispute except to record that the respondent had been punished by the disciplinary authority on the ground that he had negligently allowed claims for refund to an applicant on three different occasions. The punishment imposed was stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It may also be noticed at this stage that there is no challenge to the fact that the disciplinary authority had complied with all the necessary procedures for passing the impugned order. However, the action of the disciplinary authority was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings would lie against an officer discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions unless there was an element of moral turpitude. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the finding of the gross negligence on the part of the respondent. But it was held, relying upon the decision of th