The main legal point established in the judgment is that quasi-judicial decisions can be subject to disciplinary proceedings if there is prima facie evidence of recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of official duties.

1. This appeal is brought, by certificate, against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated January 5,1966 dismissing Original Petition No.1 of 1964 filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant, Sri. S. Govinda Menon is a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was the First Member of the Board of Revenue, Kerala State & was holding the post of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. On the basis of certain petitions containing allegations of misconduct against the appellant in the discharge of his duties as Commissioner the Kerala Government instituted certain preliminary enquires and thereafter started disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and also placed him under suspension under R.7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, hereinafter called the 'Rules'. A copy of the charges together with a statement of certain allegations was served on the appellant who thereafter filed a written statement of defence. After perusing the written statement the Government passed orders that his explanation was unacceptable and that the charges should be enquired into by an Enquiry Officer to be appointed under R.5 of the Rules. Accordingly Sri T. N. S. Raghavan, a retired I. C. S. officer was appointed to hold the inquiry. The appellant then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Kerala praying for grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated against him and for a writ of mandamus calling upon respondent No. 2, State of Kerala, to allow him to function as the First Member of the Board of Revenue. As no application for stay was made and as no order of stay was passed by the High Court Sri T. N. S. Raghavan proceeded with the inquiry and submitted his report to the Union Government finding the appellant guilty of charges 1 to 4 and 9. The Union of India, alter consideration of the report, issued a 'Show Cause Notice' Ex. P-9. The appellant thereafter filed an application before the High Court for amendment of the writ petition. The prayer in this amended petition was for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the first respondent Union of India from proceeding further in pursuance of the 'Show Cause Notice' and also for quashing the same. The application for amendment was allowed by the High Court. The main contention of the appellant was that the proceedings initiated against him were entirely without jurisdiction as no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him for acts and omissions with regard to his work as Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951), hereinafter called the 'Act' and that the orders made by him being of quasi-judicial character can be impugned only in appropriate proceedings taken under that Act. After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, Mathew, J. rejected the objections raised by the appellant regarding want of jurisdiction and held that the respondents bad power to proceed with the inquiry into the charges. S. Velu Pillai, J on the other hand, took the view that quasi-judicial decisions became final and conclusive if they were not set aside or modified in the manner prescribed by the statute and if the decisions are not so challenged, their correctness or legality must be taken to be conclusive, and such quasi-judicial decisions cannot form the subject-matter of charges in disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Velu Pillai, J. held that the Union Government had therefore no jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry on the first part of charge 1, charge 2, the first part of charge 3 and charge 4, but the Union Government had jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry with regard to the second part of charge No. 1, the second part of charge No. 3 and charge No. 9. In view of this difference of opinion the matter was placed before Govinda Menon, J. who agreed with the view taken by Mathew, J. and in the result the writ