UNION OF INDIA Vs. DULICHAND
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 21,2006

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
DULICHAND Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

G SREEKUMAR MENON COMMISSIONER APPEALS CENTRAL EXCISE JHARKAND STATE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-353] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
MR. SATYENDRA KUMAR RAY VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-402] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PAL NARANG VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S. RAJGURU [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES VS. G MANOHARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-447] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA RAJVANSHI JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-115] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM RASTOGI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHULEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD. AND OTHERS VS. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-231] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AKSHAY BIPIN [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-377] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. IQBAL VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-5-196] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBULINGAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-7-320] [REFERRED TO]
T K K THARMAR VS. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
UMESHA NAND MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA GOGOI PHUKAN VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2017-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSHREE NANDESHWAR VS. STATE OF M P & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-358] [REFERRED]
AJAYA KUMAR DASH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. GANGOO S/O LATE MAHADEV (DECEASED) [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-117] [REFERRED TO]
E RAMAKRISHNAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SE [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-212] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-319] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K KRISHNA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2010-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
S. I. CHAUDHARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSHREE NANDESHWAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VS. KAMAL KISHORE DHAWAN [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
ARATI BARUI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-5-84] [REFERRED TO]
U.O.I VS. AJIT KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY BIPIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-300] [REFERRED TO]
S SEETHARAMAN VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-637] [REFERRED TO]
SRI E. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O EARAPPA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-501] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR GARG VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P PARAMESWARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
PATRI SURYA KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2018-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PARMAR VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-5-81] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The issue in this appeal is whether disciplinary action could be taken against the respondent employee on the ground that the employee had been found to be grossly negligent while discharging quasi-judicial functions. We need not go into the factual aspect of the dispute except to record that the respondent had been punished by the disciplinary authority on the ground that he had negligently allowed claims for refund to an applicant on three different occasions. The punishment imposed was stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It may also be noticed at this stage that there is no challenge to the fact that the disciplinary authority had complied with all the necessary procedures for passing the impugned order. However, the action of the disciplinary authority was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings would lie against 'an officer discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions unless there was an element of moral turpitude. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the finding of the gross negligence on the part of the respondent. But it was held, relying upon the decision of this Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar V/s. Union of India that disciplinary proceedings would not lie against the officer discharging quasi-judicial functions unless it were established that the officer concerned had obtained an undue advantage thereby or in connection therewith.
(3.)The decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellants before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that since no ulterior motive was alleged against the respondent, the Tribunal was correct in quashing the proceedings against the respondent.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.