Disciplinary action against quasi-judicial officers is permissible if culpability is demonstrated despite errors in judgment.

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2024 made in WP(MD)No.11982 of 2024 filed by the respondent herein (Chellamuthu).

2.Chellamuthu was working as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar from

22.07.2017 to 11.10.2020 in Thirupuvanam Taluk. He had issued joint patta by including the name of one Mayan, S/o.Sundararasu in Patta No. 2727. Chellamuthu was to retire from service on 31.05.2024. One day prior to his retirement, the impugned charge memo was issued. On 30.05.2024, the District Collector, Sivagangai even while permitting Chellamuthu to retire from service on his reaching the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 31.05.2024, made it clear that that would be without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were ordered to be continued under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978. Challenging the charge memo as well as the proceeding dated 30.05.2024, Chellamuthu filed W.P.(MD)No.11982 of 2024. The learned Single Judge quashed both the proceedings and directed the authorities to permit the writ petitioner to retire from service with all attendant benefits. Challenging the same, the District Collector, Sivagangai has filed this writ appeal.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of the writ appeal. He pointed out that the charge memo could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. According to him, the writ petitioner had usurped the power of District Revenue Officer while issuing the joint patta. He, therefore, called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order.

4.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that issuance of patta partakes the character of a quasi judicial function and since in the charge memo, there is no allegation that the writ petitioner had acted out of corrupt motive, he could not have been visited with any charge memo. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 376 ( Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ). He called upon this Court to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge.

5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Issuance of patta sometimes may partake the character of a quasi judicial function. But it is not correct to contend that persons engaged in discharge of such functions enjoy immunity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56 ( Union of India Vs. K.K.Dhawan ) carved out the following situations where the government is not precluded from taking disciplinary actions for violation of the Code of Conduct: -

“(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.”

It was held that if while exercising quasi judicial function, a person acts in a reckless manner, disciplinary action can be taken. The facts on hand is clearly distinguishable from the facts in Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh . In Amresh Shrivastava, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“16.It appears that the order h