Disciplinary Proceedings Can’t Be Initiated Against Quasi-Judicial Officer Merely for Passing Wrong Order: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a quasi-judicial officer solely on the grounds of passing a wrong order. The apex court emphasized that errors in judgment, without evidence of mala fide intention or extraneous influence, do not warrant disciplinary action.
A bench of the Supreme Court made this observation while hearing an appeal related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against a quasi-judicial officer for an order they had passed. The court underscored the importance of protecting the independence of quasi-judicial officers to ensure they can perform their duties without fear of reprisal for genuine errors.
The court stated that “Merely because a quasi-judicial officer has passed a wrong order, it cannot be a ground for initiating disciplinary proceedings. There must be evidence of mala fide intention or extraneous influence to justify such action.”
The Supreme Court highlighted the distinction between errors of judgment and misconduct. It emphasized that quasi-judicial officers are expected to exercise their discretion and make decisions based on their interpretation of the law and the evidence before them. Errors in this process are inevitable, and holding officers accountable for every mistake would undermine their ability to function effectively.
The court also noted that judicial review mechanisms are in place to correct erroneous orders. These mechanisms provide an avenue for aggrieved parties to challenge decisions they believe are incorrect.
The ruling provides significant protection to quasi-judicial officers, ensuring they can perform their duties without undue pressure. It reinforces the principle that disciplinary proceedings should be reserved for cases of genuine misconduct, such as corruption or bias, rather than mere errors in judgment.
Key points from the Supreme Court’s observation:
• Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated solely for passing a wrong order.
• Evidence of mala fide intention or extraneous influence is required for disciplinary action.
• Errors of judgment are distinct from misconduct.
• Judicial review mechanisms exist to correct erroneous orders.