The Allahabad High Court has held that the setting aside of a quasi-judicial order by a writ court does not by itself justify disciplinary proceedings against the officer who passed it under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Such proceedings can be directed only where clear, cogent and verifiable facts establish misconduct.

The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,

“We find that in case in any successful writ petition where an order of authority below is set aside it cannot ipso facto result in initiation of disciplinary proceedings merely because the authority concerned has passed an order which was contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice or had any other legal infirmities.”

Petitioner had instituted a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which was decided on 15^th November 2021. Mahabodhi Society of India filed an appeal under Section 331 of the Act before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, which was admitted without condonation of delay, and an interim order was passed on 26^th June 2024.

That order was set aside by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, which recorded that the appeal had been entertained without notice and that the Commissioner's father was the President of the appellant society. The appeal was transferred to the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Gonda.

Petitioner then sought a direction to the State to initiate departmental inquiry against the Commissioner under the Rules 1968, on grounds that the order was passed without hearing him and in breach of the obligation of every member of the service to maintain integrity and do nothing unbecoming of the service.

Respondents argued that the order was passed in exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power under Section 331 of the Act, and interference by a writ court under Article 226 could not ipso facto attract disciplinary action. If every order set aside by a superior forum invited such proceedings, it was submitted, no authority could decide any controversy.

The Court observed that when the petitioner challenged the order dated 26^th June 2024, it was open to him to urge that it was malafide or passed for extraneous considerations, and that writ court had made no observation against the Commissioner. It noted that in a later petition the petitioner had himself sought the Commissioner's deletion from the array of parties.

Holding that such directions cannot be passed in a casual manner, the Court found no material on record to support the allegation of misconduct.

“We further find that unless and until there are clear cogent verifiable facts leading to misconduct as alleged, no directions for initiating disciplinary proceedings under the Rules 1968 can be passed.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Meisheng Chiang @ Chiang Mei Sheng v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Deptt. Of Personnel And Training New Delhi And 3 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order