UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus A.N. SAXENA

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 27-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

U.0.1. v. AN. SAXENA 
365 
ing stay in a disciplinary proceeding at an interlocutory stage. The imputa-
A 
tions made against the respllndent were extremely serious and the facts 
alleged, if proved, would have establ.ished misconduct and misbehaviour. 
It is surprising that without even a counter being filed, at an interim stage, 
the Tribunal, without giving any reasons and without appearently con-
sidering whether the memorandum of charges deserved to be enquired into 
or µot, granted a stay of disciplinary proceedings as it has done. If the 
disciplinary proceedings in such serious matters are stayed so lightly as 
the Tribunal appears to have done, it would be extremely difficult to bring 
any wrong-doer to book. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is 
set aside and it is directed that the dRsciplinary proceedings against the 
respondent shail be proceeded llitlt according to law. [368A-D] 
1.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is desirable that 
the same Bench of the Tribunal should not proceed with further hearing 
of the application made by the respondent. [369D] 
2. It is true that when :m officer is performingjudicial or quasi-judi-
cial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the 
course of such proceedings should be taken only after great caution and a 
close scrutiny of his actions and only if the circumstance so warrant. The 
initiation of such proceedings is likely to shake the confidence of the public 
B 
c 
D 
in the officer concerned and also if lightly taken likely to undermine his E 
independence. Hence the need for extreme care and caution before initia-
tion of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or 
quasi-judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge or 
purported to discharge hisfunctions. But it is not as if such action cannot 
be taken at all. Where the actions of such an officer indicate culpability, F 
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 not 
be taken. [368F-H, 369A] 
3. It is surprising that in a disciplinary enquiry pertaining to 
serious charges the respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily under G 
Fundamental Rule 56(k). It is not known whether it was duly considered 
whether his application for voluntary l'etirement ought to have been 
rejected in view of pending enquiry against him and in view of the 
seriousnes~ of the charges levelled against him. However, nothing more 
can be done in that connection. [369E-F] 
H 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 50-51 of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1992. 
From the Judgment and order dated 27.6.1991 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. No. 1307 of 1991. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Addl. Solicitor General, Ashok K. Srivastava, Hemant 
Sharma and P. Parmeswarn for the Appellants. -
A.K. Sanghi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KA..1'1IA, CJ. These appeals are directed against two orders passed 
by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi 
(hereinafter referred to as "The tribunal"). By the first impugned order the 
appellant was restrained from proceeding further with the disciplinary 
proceedings against the respondent in terms of the charge-she~t dated 
March 13, 1989, filed by the appellant. This order was passed by the 
Vacation Bench of the tribunal on June 27, 1991. 
The second order sought to be challenged is an order dat.ed July 15, 
1991, whereby the tribunal directed that in case the commuted value of the 
pension payable to the respondent was refunded, the respondent should 
be paid the full value of the pension from the due date including the arrears 
pending the proceedings before the tribunal. 
We propose to set out only a few facts. At the relevant time, the 
respondent was an Income Tax Officer posted at New Delhi. On March 
13, 1989, a memorandum of charges or charge-sheet was served on the 
respondent. The first article of charge was to the effect that the respondent 
while functioning as an Income Tax Officer completed certain assessments 
in an irregular manner, designed to confer undue benefit on the assessees 
concerned. The statement of imputations for misconduct and misbehaviour 
was forwarded along with the charge-sheet. 
The first case dealt with is that of Master Raju Sehgal Trust. The 
assessment year in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.