The main legal point established in the judgment is that the President of the Commission cannot pass an order restraining the petitioners from exercising their judicial and other powers, and that the State Government has the authority to pass an order of suspension in accordance with law.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25. 5. 2005 (Ann. 1 and 2), by which both the petitioners have been restrained from working as a Member and President of the district Consumer Forum, Meerut (hereinafter called the Forum), respectively, and from exercising any other administrative power. The records have also been directed to be sealed and recommendation has been made to the State Government by the President of the State Consumer dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) for suspension of the petitioners along with one other member of the Forum.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on receiving certain complaint against the petitioners and one other officer, namely, Smt. Kusum Tandon, President and members of the Forum, the Chairman of the Commission passed an order restraining them from performing any function, and certain record was directed to be seated, and further recommendations have been made to the State Government to put them under suspension Hence this petition.

( 3 ) SHRI Manu Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has , submitted that law does not empower the President of the Commission to pass an order restraining the petitioners from exercising their judicial, financial or administrative powers, as it amounts to suspension prior to passing the order of suspension by the State Government More so, sealing the record is also unwarranted unjustified and an act in exercise of the powers conferred, arbitrarily. Thus, in such a fact situation, the impugned order passed by the President of the Commission be quashed and state Government be restrained from passing the order of suspension. It is further submitted by shri Manu Saxena that even if there is an error in the judicial order which can be rectified in appeal and revision, the question of dealing with the officer or holding an enquiry on such charges, is not permissible.

( 4 ) SHRI Sudhir Agrawal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that considering the gravity of allegations in the complaint against the petitioners, which was found by the President of the Commission to be true, the impugned orders restraining them from exercising their powers were justified, otherwise they would have played havoc. Sealing of the record was considered to be necessary so that the petitioners may not tamper with the evidence, and it is not open to the petitioners at this stage to seek a direction restraining the state Government from passing an order of suspension, for the reason that such a relief cannot be claimed at this stage as the State Government has not yet considered the recommendations made by the President of the Commission and seeking such a relief would be premature. It has been further submitted by Shri Agrawal that correction of a judicial error in appeal/revision is something different and it shall not prevent the employer from initiating disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer if the order passed by him reflects on his integrity. Thus, petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE order impugned was passed against three officers of the Forum. Smt Kusum Tandon did not approach this Court The petitioner No. 2 who was the President of the Forum stood retired on 11th July, 2005. Thus, we have to consider only the case of petitioner No. 1.

( 7 ) IT is settled legal proposition that even if a judicial error in a judgment or order passed by a judicial or quasi-judicial officer can be corrected in appeal or revision that does not bar the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings if the order reflects on his integrity or there is prima facie case to show that the order has been passed for extraneous consideration. In this respect reference may be given to the jud