S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who retired from Government Service as Consolidation Officer on 31.7.92, has invoked the procedure of this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.3.95 of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and disciplinary proceeding initiated against him qua charge-sheet embodied in office memo No. 2075/VI-Ka-ST, dated 2.4.1988. The departmental proceedings which were admittedly pending at the time of petitioner's retirement, are sought to be quashed basically on two grounds, firstly that after retirement, no departmental proceedings could be continued against a Government servant and secondly, that the proceedings are barred by Section 49A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act in that the disciplinary proceedings appertain to judicial duties performed by the petitioner as Consolidation Officer and Section 49A provides in no uncertain terms, that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Act or the Rules made thereunder.
(2.) Subsequent to his retirement, the petitioner filed two separate claim petitions, viz., Claim Petition No. 1518 of 1993 and Claim Petition No. 1517 of 1993 challenging the impugned departmental proceedings. The State Public Service Tribunal by its order dated 28.3.95 declined to interfere with the departmental proceedings though attended with the observation that in view of the provisions contained in Articles 351AA and 919A of Civil Services Regulations, the provisional pension as provided in Article 919A may be sanctioned for the period commencing from the date of relirement till the conclusion of the departmental proceedings.
(3.) I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and the standing counsel representing the opposite parlies. In Union of India and others v. A. M. Saxena, (1992) 3 SCC 124. It was canvassed before the Supreme Court that as the respondent A. M. Saxena was performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in making the assessment orders under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, his actions even if wrong, could be mended/repaired in appeal or revision and no disciplinary action could be taken against him regarding such actions. The argument was repelled in the following words : "In our view, an argument that no disciplinary action can be taken in regard to actions taken or purported to be done in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is not correct. It is true that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial 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 circumstances so warrant. The initiation of such proceedings, it is true, is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the officer concerned and also if lightly taken likely to undermine his Independence. Hence the need for extreme care and caution before Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing Judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge or purported to discharge his functions. But it is not as if such action cannot be taken at all. Where the actions of such an officer indicate culpability, 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." In Govinda Menon a. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1274. It was contended that no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against the appellant Govind Menon for acts or omissions with regard to his work as Commissioner under Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, inasmuch as the orders made by him, were quasi-judicial in character and they should be challenged only as provided for under the Act. It was held that the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant could be taken "in respect of his acts or omissions which cast reflection upon his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty as a member of the service".;