The error of law in discharge of quasi-judicial function can be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 13.09.2022 made in W.P.No.15965 of 2017 on the file of this Court and allow the writ appeal.)

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15965 of 2017 dated 13.09.2022, insofar as the challenge to the Charge Memo was rejected on the premise that, the writ petition against Charge Memo ought not to be entertained.

2. Brief Facts:

The appellant was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1975 and promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-I during the year 1999. He reached the age of Superannuation on 30.06.2017 A.N. While so, a Charge Memo dated 16.06.2017 was issued against the appellant, 14 days prior to his date of retirement. The allegation levelled against the appellant is that he undervalued certain documents, which were presented for registration, resulting in financial loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.39,19,219/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen only). Details regarding the documents, which were undervalued at the time of registration were set-out in the Annexure to the Charge Memo furnished to the appellant.

3. The appellant herein challenged the Charge Memo by way of writ petition in W.P.No.15965 of 2017 and the same came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the premise that the writ petition against Charge Memo ought not to be entertained. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

“3. No writ against the charge memo is entertainable in a routine manner. The writ against the charge memo is entertainable only on limited grounds, if the charge memo is tainted with allegation of malafides or issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction. In all other circumstances, the charged official has to defend his case by participating in the enquiry. Thus, the Courts would not interfere with the process of enquiry in a routine manner. The authorities on initiation of disciplinary proceedings, must be allowed to proceed and conclude the same by following the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The scope of entertaining the writ petition against the charge memo is certainly limited and judicial review can be exercised only on exceptional circumstances, when the writ petitioner establishes the legal infirmity for quashing the charge memo.”

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the present writ appeal.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the challenge is primarily on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition for the following reasons:

a) That the alleged error in discharging quasi-judicial functions for which the disciplinary proceeding initiated would not constitute misconduct. In this regard, reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409 (hereinafter referred to as “Nagarkar”), to submit that every error of law in discharge of quasi-judicial function would not constitute misconduct for it would then impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial authorities.

b) That the Charge Memo is vague inasmuch as it does not even point out any Government Order or Provisions which have been violated by the appellant resulting in / causing loss to the Government, with an ulterior motive.

c) The fact that no witnesses were examined is again indicative of the fact that the initiation of major penalty proceedings against the appellant invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules is not warranted.

d) That the Charge Memo has been issued only on the basis of local audit remarks which by itself cannot be