Tamil Nadu - Madurai

Court ruling on disciplinary proceedings

MADURAI: A Government official cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for passing erroneous orders, due to negligence or ignorance of the legal position, in his/her capacity as a quasi judicial authority, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Allowing a writ petition filed in the Madurai Bench by a retired Deputy Collector, Justice S. Nagamuthu said that departmental action could be initiated against such officials only if they were charged of corruption, abuse of power and so on.

Stating that ‘judicial’ was not an easily definable term, the Judge said that it referred to any of the proceedings where an authority was enjoined with powers to hold an enquiry, appreciate evidence along with other materials, and then pass orders.

One could not expect officials presiding over such proceedings to appreciate the facts objectively and arrive at a correct conclusion, unless they were free and independent.

Independence was the fulcrum of any judicial system. “If any judicial or quasi judicial authority is made to work under fear of being hauled up for disciplinary proceedings in future for the decisions to be taken by him, then that will be a violence to the independence of judicial and quasi judicial functions,” the Judge said.

He went on to state: “Appreciation depends upon the prudence of an individual. While applying the test of prudence to form opinion in a given situation, opinion may differ from person to person. That is the reason why there are remedies like appeal and revision.”

In the present case, N. Soundarapandian of Madurai had challenged the action initiated against him in 2000, four years after his retirement, under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules for having passed an allegedly erroneous order during his tenure.

The petitioner was pulled up for granting a few ‘pattas’ (land ownership documents) in his capacity as Assistant Settlement Officer under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said that the disciplinary proceeding was liable to be quashed even on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating it.

“For the mistakes committed by the department… the petitioner shall not be made to suffer any further,” Mr. Justice Nagamuthu added.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu