Smt. C. Saradamma vs Board of Revenue and Others

Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.—Petitioner, an Appellate Assistant Commissioner; Agricultural Income tax and Sates tax, was found guilty of ''gross negligence and dereliction of duty by Ext. P5. The charge under Ext. P1 was that she did not achieve the quota of 385 appeals fixed for a period, in place of 385 appeals, only 22 were disposed of. To Ext. P1 charges, petitioner showed cause by Ext. P4 She pleaded mitigation. It was not her case, that the charge would net Ire, as the acts complained of arose in the discharge of judicial duties, which is the case how. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was found guilty of acts performed by her in discharge of judicial or quasi judicial duties Such matters, cannot form subject matter of a charge of misconduct, according to counsel. Reliance was placed on the decision in Union of India and others vs. J. Ahmed (A. T. R. 1979 S. C 1022) to support the contention. A charge of ''misconduct'' was levelled in that case alleging ''lack of leadership, inaptitude, lack of foresight, lack of firmness and indecisiveness''. These are matters which relate to the Mental make up of a person. The Supreme Court found that acts and omissions understood as misconduct in the rules, do not comprehend inefficiency or incompetence. In the instant case dereliction of application. is not with reference to innate qualities of the official, nor with reference the matters falling in the exercise of decision making or application of judicial mind. Charge relates to violation of an administrative direction namely failure to adhere to a quota. Administrative defections could be issued to judicial or quasi judicial functionaries, without interfering with their judicial functions. Issue of such directions hare ho overtones, as far as She performance of such duties are concerned. The instructions in the instant case, have no bearing on the decision making process, expected of the petitioner. Nor, do the charges relate to the quality of judicial functioning of the petitioner.

At no point of time, petitioner had a case-until she cams to this court - that Government lacked jurisdiction to initiate action m respect of matters, forming subject of the charge. All that she ''pleaded was mitigation in Ext. P4. The authority did not accept the explanation of petitioner. I do not think that the finding reached by the authority is vitiated by errors manifest on the face of the record, meriting interference under Article 226 Besides, this is not a fit case for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this court. Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.