Judicial orders must be followed; non-compliance by quasi-judicial authorities constitutes misconduct, warranting potential disciplinary action.

ORDER :

1. At the very outset, this Court, before adverting to the facts of the instant case, would like to observe that under the principles of rule of law, a quasi-judicial body is obligated to adhere to judicial directives. Disobedience of a Court order amounts to breach of duty and professional misconduct, warranting departmental action by the appointing authority. The appointing authority is empowered to initiate an inquiry, assess the extent of the misconduct, with disciplinary measures, in accordance with the applicable service rules and statutory provisions governing the conduct of quasi-judicial officers.

2. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is vested with the powers of superintendence over the subordinate Courts, Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities of the State of Rajasthan. Acting as a quasi-judicial authority, the Deputy District Collector and Magistrate, Jaipur II, Sanganer (Jaipur)/Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Sanganer, Jaipur is subject to the superintendence of this Court and accordingly, any orders/directions passed by this Court are certainly binding upon him. He cannot escape from complying with such orders/directions in any manner and cannot shirk from discharge of his duties without assigning any satisfactory, valid and justified reasons.

3. Certainly the Officer, who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers and acts negligently or recklessly, then such act will amount to misconduct. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 has dealt with certain illustrations where disciplinary action can be taken against such erring officers for violation of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It has been held in Para 28 as under:-

“28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases:

(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;

(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;

(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;

(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;

(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;

(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago “though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great”.”

4. The instant misc. application has been preferred by the applicant-petitioner, who is a Senior Citizen of 70 years old infirm l