Disciplinary action can be taken against officers for misconduct reflecting on integrity, regardless of their judicial functions, and the correctness of charges cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Order :

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) with the charge that he submitted D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13019/2023 before this Court without informing the department and impleaded the department as party respondent in the array of cause title. Counsel submits that such an act on the part of the petitioner was found to be a misconduct under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1971 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1971’). Counsel submits that several notices were issued to the petitioner by the then Presiding Officer for not submitting the case diary. Counsel submits that this fact was brought into the notice of the authority but no heed was paid by them, hence, under these circumstances, no option was left with him except to approach this Court by way of filing the aforesaid petition. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, he had also informed the Department on 03.07.2023. Counsel submits that aforesaid act of the petitioner does not amount to misconduct under the Rules of 1971, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 has been served upon the petitioner and he was called upon to answer the above charges but correctness of the allegations cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56, has held as under:-

“26. In the case on hand, article of charge clearly mentions that the nine assessments covered by the article of charge were completed:

i) in an irregular manner,

ii) in undue haste, and

iii) apparently with a view to confer undue favour upon the assessee concerned. (Emphasis supplied).

Therefore, the allegation of conferring undue favour is very much there unlike Civil Appeal No.560/91. If that be so, certainly disciplinary action is warranted. This Court had occasion to examine the position. In Union of India v. A. N. Saxena , (1992) 3 SCC 124 to which one of us (Mohan, J.) was a party, it was held as under (Paras 7 and 8 of AIR):

"It was urged before us by learned counsel for the respondent that as the respondent was performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in making the assessment orders in question even if his actions were wrong they could be corrected in an appeal or in revision and no disciplinary proceedings could be taken regarding such actions. In our view, an argument that no disciplinary action can be taken in regard to actions taken or purported to be done in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is not correct. It is true that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceeding should be taken only after great caution and a close scrutiny of his actions and only if the circumstances so warrant. The Initiation of such proceedings. it is true, is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the officer concerned and also if lightly taken likely to undermine his independence. Hence the need for extreme care and caution before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge or purported to discharge his functions. But it Is not as if such action cannot be taken at all. Where the actions of such an officer indicate culpability, namely a desire to oblige himself or unduly favour one of the parties or an improper motive there is no reason why disciplinary action should n