disciplinary action can be taken against the officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers

N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3613 OF 2022 (Arising Out of
SLP (C) No. 21948 of 2019) MUZAFFAR HUSAIN VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND ANR. Hon’ble ….J.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD]
Hon’ble ….J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] J U D G M E N T Date 06.05.2022
पैरा 7. It may further be noted that when a disciplinary action can be taken
against the officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers, has also been
succinctly laid down by this court in case of Union of India Vs. K.K. Dhawan
(supra): -
“28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial
powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a
person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent
has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we
are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the
respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an
officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may
be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our
mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action
for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary
action can be taken in the following cases:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation
for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the
discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions
which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may
be because Lord Coke said long ago “though the bribe may be small, yet the
fault is great.”
पैरा 15. In our opinion, showing undue favour to a party under the guise of
passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct.
The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a
monetary consideration. It is often said that “the public servants are like fish in
the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water”. A judge must
decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to
the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not
performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like
Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion