Passing Erroneous Quasi-Judicial Order Without Mala Fides, Corruption Not Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed on a retired officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, who was accused of passing a wrongful decree in a tenancy suit and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, opining that an alleged erroneous quasi-judicial order was not misconduct.

The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against an officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial powers merely because another authority formed a different legal opinion or considered the decision to be erroneous, unless there existed recklessness, mala fides, corrupt motive, or dishonest intention.

For context, the petitioner was an RAS officer, who was serving as Deputy Director, ICSD, Churu in 2001. While serving on the post, he had decreed a suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in favour of a person, in 2002.

On the date of his retirement in 2017, he was served with a charge sheet with the allegations that his order passed in 2002, in the aforementioned case, was wrong. This was followed by disciplinary proceedings against him that culminated into a penalty of permanent withholding of 100% pension of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition was filed.

The Petitioner argued that the order in the case was passed while discharging his quasi-judicial function, and that too after considering all the pleadings on record. There was no allegation of any corruption, mala fides, dishonesty or illegality furthered against him.

Further, it was submitted that no appeal or revision was preferred against the decree, challenging its validity. Also, the show cause was issued after an inordinate delay of 15 years.

On the contrary, the State submitted that the petitioner had exceeded the jurisdiction while granting khatedari rights to the concerned person over a land that was recorded as Gochar (pasture). Such conduct was alleged to be not merely an erroneous judicial decision but an act of gross negligence.

The State further contended that absence of allegations regarding mala fides, corruption etc. did not absolve the petitioner from the misconduct, and that under the service jurisprudence grave negligence or violation of statutory provisions was sufficient to attract disciplinary action.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the disciplinary proceedings were emanating only from the order that was passed against which no appeal or revision was made. Further, there were no allegations of corruption, mala fides, dishonesty, illegal gratification etc. against the petitioner.

The Court further stated that the concerned order was a reasoned one, based on every material that was on record. In this light, the Court opined,

“The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, therefore, in substance seek to reopen and examine the correctness and legality of a quasi-judicial determination that had long since attained finality. Such a collateral scrutiny of a quasi-judicial order through disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of any allegation of mala fides, corruption or dishonest motive, is wholly impermissible in service jurisprudence.”

It was observed that an erroneous quasi-judicial determination did not by itself constitute misconduct, warranting disciplinary action, and there was nothing on record to allege recklessness or improper motive on the petitioner.

The Court highlighted certain procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the fact that there was inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, for which no satisfactory explanation was provided by the State.

In this background, the Court allowed the petition, with direction to the State to restore petitioner's pension and disbursing the same within 2 months.

Title: Fateh Rai Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

Click Here To Read/Download Order