Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the memo dated 12.1.1990 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : When he was working as Deputy Financial Controller in Villupuram, he was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into certain charges of misconduct against S. Kandasamy, Assistant Accounts Officer; R. Thiyagarajan, Assistant Accounts Officer; M. Kathirvelu, Accounts Supervisor; S. Ramachandran, Accounts Supervisor; T. Ganesan, Assistant and M. Sharufuddin, Assistant, all working in Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai, for having colluded with M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer (C and I), Pudupalayarn, in causing loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 4.48 lakhs and also to enquire into certain charges of submitted bogus hand receipts etc., against C. N. Kannan, Lineman (C and I), Pudupalayam and M. Subramaniam, then Assistant Engineer (C and I), Pudupalayam. The enquiries were conducted separately against each individual. In the enquiry, he found that C. N. Kannan was guilty of the charges. As regards M. Subramaniam, he could not complete the enquiry against all the four charges levelled against him, since in the meanwhile, he was transferred to Madras. However, he had completed the enquiry into the first charge against the said M. Subramaniam, and he submitted his findings with regard to that only holding him guilty of the first charge. With regard to the four delinquents viz., Kathirvelu, Ramachandran, Ganesan and Sharufuddin, no evidence was let in or oral evidence let in to establish the charge of collusion and hence, he found them not guilty. As regards S. Kandasamy and Thiyagarajan also, he found them not guilty. In fact, S. Kandasamy, the then Assistant Accounts Officer had retired from service even before the enquiry was started. He submitted his individual findings to the 2nd respondent, who appears to have disagreed with his (petitioner's) findings in so far as he found the six persons in the Accounts Branch not guilty. In fact, S. Kandasamy, the then Assistant Accounts Officer had retired from service even before the enquiry was started. He submitted his individual findings to the 2nd respondent, who appears to have disagreed with his (petitioner's) findings in so far as he found the six persons in the Accounts Branch not guilty. While so, he was surprised to receive the impugned memo, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not proceed against departmentally for having found not guilty the said S. Kandasamy, Assistant Accounts Officer, M. Kathirvelu, Accounts Supervisor, S. Ramachandran, Accounts Supervisor, T. Ganesan, Assistant and M. Sharufuddin, Assistant, on the ground that his findings are perverse and he has been dishonest in his Board's work in finding them not guilty. There is no allegation that the petitioner held failed in the discharge of his duty as Deputy Financial Controller. In spite of his explanation, the 2nd respondent has appointed the third respondent as an Enquiry Officer, in his memo dated 12.3.1990. Even a mere look at the charge memo will show that the facts stated therein are incorrect. There is no allegation of any corrupt practice against him in holding the delinquents in question 'not guilty'. Hence the impugned memo is totally without jurisdiction, illegal and void, arbitrary and is vitiated by mala rides besides being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. On behalf of respondents, second respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. The counter affidavit runs as follows : In Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle of Vellore Region, embezzlement of Board's money by M. Subramaniam, then Assistant Engineer/Construction and Improvement, Pudupalayam came to light. He prepared bogus contractors' bills and hand receipts for payment of labour charges for the works which were not done. Besides taking action on this individual, action was also taken on two Assistants, two Accounts Supervisors and two Assistant Accounts Officers for their failure to exercise proper cheek and supervision on the bogus bills preferred by M. Subramaniam and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on them. For conducting oral enquiry on the disciplinary proceedings taken, the petitioner, Deputy Financial Controller then in Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle was appointed as Enquiry Officer. For conducting oral enquiry on the disciplinary proceedings taken, the petitioner, Deputy Financial Controller then in Villupuram Electricity Distribution Circle was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He conducted oral enquiries and furnished his findings holding the charges as not proved in regard to the disciplinary proceedings taken on the two Assistants, two Accounts Supervisors and two Assistant Accounts Officers. It is further stated that the enquiry findings revealed that the Enquiry Officer failed to analyse the charges properly. He had put forth the cause of the delinquents rather than arrive at a judicious and reasoned findings. His findings were perverse. By giving such perverse findings, the petitioner had neglected his duties as a responsible officer of the Board, which is dishonesty in Board's work and are misconducts. Hence, he was charge-sheeted for the above said lapses in Memo dated 12.1.1990. He submitted his written defence. In order to give him another opportunity to defend himself, the Superintending Engineer/Tiruvalam was appointed as Enquiry Officer. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained an order of injunction. Absolutely there is no merit in the writ petition; accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the same. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. N. Sivaprakasarn, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into certain charges of misconduct against; (i) S. Kandasamy, Assistant Accounts officer, (ii) R. Thiyagarajan, Assistant Accounts Officer, (iii) M. Kathirvelu, Accounts Supervisor, (iv) S. Ramachandran, Accounts Supervisor, (v) T. Ganesan, Assistant and (vi) M. Sharufuddin, Assistant, all working in Thiruvannamatai Electricity Distribution Circle, Thiruvannamalai, for having colluded with M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer (C and I) Pudupalayam, in causing loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 4.48 lakhs and also to enquire in certain charges of submitting bogus Hand Receipts etc., against C. N. Kannan, Linernan, Pudupalayam and M. Subramaniam, then Assistant (C and I), Pudupalayam. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner as Enquiry Officer failed to analyse the charges properly and his findings were perverse. It is also stated that by giving such perverse findings, the petitioner had neglected his duties as a responsible officer of the Board, which is dishonesty in Board's works and are misconducts. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner as Enquiry Officer failed to analyse the charges properly and his findings were perverse. It is also stated that by giving such perverse findings, the petitioner had neglected his duties as a responsible officer of the Board, which is dishonesty in Board's works and are misconducts. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the above said lapses. The charge against the petitioners it that he failed to analyse the charge properly and arrive at judicious and reasoned finding and for giving perverse finding. It is also stated that the petitioner had put forth the cause of the delinquents rather than arrive at a judicious and reasoned findings. 6. The following charge has been framed against the petitioner. "Charge : Thiru G. Anandam, then Deputy Financial Controller/Villupuram while furnishing his findings on the above Disciplinary Proceedings had not analysed the charges properly. He had put forth the cause of the delinquent rather than arrive at a judicious and reasoned finding. Simply because the delinquents are not the beneficiaries of the fraud committed by Thiru M. Subrarnaniam, Assistant Engineer, their lapse of improper checks would not get vanished. The findings in regard to all the six disciplinary proceedings cases referred above are perverse. By giving such reverse finding Thiru G. Anandarn had neglected his duties as a responsible officer of the T.N.E.B. and shattered the confidence posed on him by the Board which is dishonesty in Board's work. These are misconducts". On the receipt of the charge memo, he had submitted his explanation to the second respondent on 20.2.1990. In the said explanation, it is stated that he had given his findings according to his assessment of evidence let in before him. He also stated that the charge itself is very vague and does not give any particulars, and that it does not say where he had gone wrong and how his findings are perverse. He also stated that since he was acting as a quasi-judicial authority, he cannot be charged for a misconduct merely because the disciplinary authority disagreed with his findings. 7. In the light of the charge framed against the petitioner Mr. He also stated that since he was acting as a quasi-judicial authority, he cannot be charged for a misconduct merely because the disciplinary authority disagreed with his findings. 7. In the light of the charge framed against the petitioner Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice the report of the Enquiry Officer and the entire enquiry proceedings conducted by the petitioner in respect of the charge of misconduct made against K. Kandasamy, R. Thiyagarajan, M. Kathirvelu, S. Ramachandran, T. Ganesan and M. Sharufuddin. It is seen that the above said persons while working in Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, in collusion with one M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer (C and I), Pudupalayam, caused loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 4.48 lakhs. The petitioner herein was also asked to enquire into certain charges of submitting bogus Hand Receipts etc., against C. N. Kannan, Lineman, Pudupalayam and M. Subramaniam, then Assistant Engineer, Pudupalayam. The specific allegations against the said M. Subramaniam and C. N. Kannan were that they had in collaboration with some of the relatives of the said C. N. Kannan, created bogus hand-receipts, imprest vouchers and received money from the Board to the tune of Rs. 4.48 lakhs. As regards the other 6 persons mentioned above, the specific allegations were that they colluded with the said M. Subramaniam, Assistant Engineer. In the case of enquiry relating to Kandasamy, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer, petitioner herein, considered the statement of the delinquent and other records. After analysing the entire materials placed before him, he came to the conclusion in the following manner : "... I conclude that Thiru S. Kandasarny has acted only in the interest of the Board's work in good faith. There is no negligence whatsoever from the side of the delinquent officer. Since there is no negligence on his part, the financial loss of Rs. 19, 893.00 in respect of the 18 Nos. Hand receipts cannot be attributed to the delinquent officer. The financial loss is only attributed to the other staff who have involved in the above scandal. 1 therefore state that Thiru S. Kandasamy, the then Assistant Accounts Officer/T.V. Malai Elecy. Distin. Circle/Accounts Officer, Kadamparai, pumped storage Hydro Electric Project, Minparai (now retired) is not at all responsible for this charge. Hand receipts cannot be attributed to the delinquent officer. The financial loss is only attributed to the other staff who have involved in the above scandal. 1 therefore state that Thiru S. Kandasamy, the then Assistant Accounts Officer/T.V. Malai Elecy. Distin. Circle/Accounts Officer, Kadamparai, pumped storage Hydro Electric Project, Minparai (now retired) is not at all responsible for this charge. I again state that the charge levelled against the above officer in Superintending Engineer/T.V. Malai Memo NO. SF/T. Admn. 3/A.2/F.126/88, dated 17.12.1988 is not proved". Similar conclusion has been arrived at in the disciplinary action in respect of R. Thiyagarajan, the then Assistant Accounts officer, Tiruvannamalai. In the enquiries conducted against others, Mr. Prasad has took me through the entire enquiry proceedings, which are included in the typed-set of papers. In the enquiry, he found that C. N. Kannan was found guilty. As regards the charges levelled against M. Subramaniam, he could not complete the enquiry, since he was transferred to Madras. However, it is clear that he has completed the enquiry into the first charge and he submitted his findings with regard to that only holding him guilty of the first charge. As started earlier, in the light of the allegations made against the petitioner, who was Enquiry Officer in the earlier enquiry proceedings, I have gone through the entire enquiry report relating to all the persons and I am unable to share the conclusion arrived at by the 2nd Respondent, namely, that the petitioner as Enquiry Officer failed to analyse the charges properly. When sufficient materials are lacking on the side of the management, it is always open to the Enquiry Officer to arrive at a decision and hold against them with reference to the materials placed before him. As stated earlier, he had considered the statement of delinquent officers and perused the relevant records and finally came to the conclusion that except C. N. Kannan and M. Subramaniam, (first charge alone), there is no material in respect of the charges levelled against them. 8. In this regard, Mr. Prasad has very much relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K. K. Dhawan, 1993 I CLR 415. 8. In this regard, Mr. Prasad has very much relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K. K. Dhawan, 1993 I CLR 415. The question in that case was, an Income-Tax Officer, exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether can be proceeded against under the Conduct Rules for completing assessments in irregular manner, in undue haste and conferring undue favours and whether he is immune from disciplinary proceedings as he is exercising quasi-judicial functions. Their lordships, after referring to the observations of lopes L.J. in Pearce v. Foster, (1866) 17 Q.B.D. 536 at 542, have concluded thus : "20. The above case, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the Government servant even with regard to exercise of quasi-judicial powers provided : (i) The act or omission is such as to reflect on the reputation of the Government servant for his integrity or good faith or devotion to duty, or (ii) there is prima facie material manifesting recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of the official duty, or (iii) the officer had failed to act honestly or in good faith or had omitted to observe the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of statutory power. 21. We may also usefully refer to two English decisions, Thayre v. The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, 22 TLR 240 states. "Dishonesty" included dishonesty outside the service of the company as well as dishonesty towards the company. 22. In Thompson v. British Berna Motor Lorries Ltd. 33 TLR 187 at 188, it has been held as under :" It was the duty of the servant to render proper, full, and clear accounts to his principals, and it was the duty of a servant to render prompt obedience to the lawful orders of his master, in this case the plaintiff had failed in both respects. There was no question as to the plaintiff's honesty, but he had been negligent ". 23. The tribunal has chosen to rely on Civil Appeal Nos. 4986-87 of 1990. The order in that case clearly shows the ultimate conclusion was that the charge framed against the delinquent officer had not been established. There was no question as to the plaintiff's honesty, but he had been negligent ". 23. The tribunal has chosen to rely on Civil Appeal Nos. 4986-87 of 1990. The order in that case clearly shows the ultimate conclusion was that the charge framed against the delinquent officer had not been established. In support of that conclusion, it was observed as under :" We are also of the view that the action taken by the appellant was quasi-judicial and should not have formed the basis of disciplinary action ". 24. We do not think where to buttress the ultimate conclusion, this observation was made, that could even be construed as laying down the law that in no case disciplinary action could be taken if it pertains to exercise of quasi-judicial power. 25. Then, we come to Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1991 to which one of us (Mohan, J) was a party. The ruling in this case turned on the peculiar facts. Nevertheless, what we have to carefully notice is the observation as under :" On a reading of the charges and the allegations in detail, learned Additional Solicitor General has fairly stated that they do not disclose any culpability nor is there any allegation of taking any bribe or to trying to favour any party in making the orders granting relief in respect of which misconduct is alleged against the respondent". 26. The above extract will clearly indicate that if there was any culpability or any allegation of taking bribe or trying to favour any party in exercise of quasi-judicial functions, then disciplinary action could be taken. We find our conclusion is supported by the following observations found in the said order at page 3 :" In our view, the allegations are merely to the effect that the refunds were granted to unauthorised instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. There is no allegation, however, either express or implied, that these actions were taken by the respondent actuated by any corrupt motive or to oblige any person on account of extraneous considerations. In these circumstances, merely because such orders of refunds were made, even assuming that they were erroneous or wrong, no disciplinary action could be taken as the respondent was discharging quasi-judicial function. In these circumstances, merely because such orders of refunds were made, even assuming that they were erroneous or wrong, no disciplinary action could be taken as the respondent was discharging quasi-judicial function. If any erroneous order had been passed by him, the correct remedy is by way of an appeal or revision to have such orders set aside ". 27. In the case on hand, article of charge clearly mentions that the nine assessments covered by the article of charge were completed : (i) in an irregular manner, (ii) in undue haste, and (iii) apparently with a view to confer undue favour upon the assessees concerned. Therefore, the allegation of conferring undue favour is very much there unlike Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1991. If that be so, certainly disciplinary action is warranted. This Court had occasion to examine the position in Union of India & Ors. v. A. N. Saxena to which one of us (Mohan, J.) was a party. It was held as under :" It was urged before us by learned counsel for the respondent that as the respondent was performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in making the assessment orders in question, even if his actions were wrong they could be corrected in an appeal or in revision and no disciplinary proceedings could be taken regarding such actions. In our view, an argument that no disciplinary action can be taken in regard to actions taken or purported to be done in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is not correct. It is true that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceedings should be taken only after great caution and a close scrutiny of his action and only if the circumstances so warrant. The initiation of such proceedings, it is true, is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the officer concerned and, also, if lightly taken, likely to undermine his independence. Hence the need for extreme care and caution before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge or purported to discharge his functions. But, it is not as if such action cannot be taken at all. Hence the need for extreme care and caution before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge or purported to discharge his functions. But, it is not as if such action cannot be taken at all. Where the actions of such an officer indicate culpability, namely a desire to oblige himself or unduly favour one of the parties or an improper motive, there is no reason why disciplinary. action should not be taken ". 28. This dictum fully supports the stand of the appellant. There is a great reason and justice for holding in such cases that the disciplinary action could be taken. It is one of the cardinal principles of administration of justice that it must be free from bias of any kind. 29. 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. 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 prime facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in this discharge of his duty; (iii) If he had acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant; (iv) If he had 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". 30. The instances above catalogued are not exhaustive. However, we may add that for a mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not failing under the above enumerated instances, disciplinary action is not warranted. Here, we may utter a word of caution. Each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated". 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, after going through the enquiry report of the petitioner, I am unable to share the view expressed by the respondents. I have also perused the charge memo issued to S. Kandasamy, R. Thiyagarajan, M. Kathirvelu, S. Ramachandran, T. Ganesan and M. Sharufuddin. According to the petitioner as Enquiry Officer, even the facts stated therein are incorrect, the charges were not clear. He also observed that there was no allegation that the alleged loss was due to their failure to cheek the correctness of the arithmetical calculations or that they do not conform to the schedule of rates etc. Likewise, it is not the case of the Board that the hand receipts were not countersigned by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Division Engineer and that the delinquent officers passed them without checking the counter signature. Likewise, it is not the case of the Board that the hand receipts were not countersigned by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Division Engineer and that the delinquent officers passed them without checking the counter signature. It is also seen that no action was taken and even no explanation was called for against the Assistant Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer, who counter-signed the Hand Receipts in question. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Prasad, there was no allegation of any corrupt practice against the petitioner in holding the delinquents in question 'not guilty'. It is also clear that he has given his findings according to his assessment of evidence let in before him and that just because the disciplinary authority has come to a different conclusion that does not mean that he had neglected his duty as a responsible officer of the Board and shattered the confidence posed on him by the Board and that it amounts to dishonesty in Board's work. In the light of the facts demonstrated before me, even though the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers is amenable and answerable and the Government is not precluded from taking disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules, absolutely there is no material or basis for such conclusion in our case. When there is no acceptable material on the side of the management, the Enquiry Officer has no other option except to hold against them and in that event, it is not open to the management to take disciplinary action against him. It is needless to mention that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, it is always open to them to arrive at an independent conclusion on the basis of the material. It is also clear from the records that the respondents have not taken any action against the Assistant Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer, who counter-signed the Hand Receipts in question. With regard to the conduct of the enquiry relating to M. Subramaniam, it is not known the result of the said enquiry. It is also clear from the records that the respondents have not taken any action against the Assistant Executive Engineer and Divisional Engineer, who counter-signed the Hand Receipts in question. With regard to the conduct of the enquiry relating to M. Subramaniam, it is not known the result of the said enquiry. In the light of the above factual position as observed by Their Lordships in the above referred decision, when an officer is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions, disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceedings should be taken only after great caution and a close scrutiny of his actions and only if the circumstances so warrant. If the initiation of such proceedings is taken lightly, as rightly contended by Mr. Prasad, it is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the officer concerned and also, likely to undermine his independence. Accordingly, extreme care and caution before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi judicial functions in respect of his actions in the discharge of his duty has to be taken. I am satisfied that there is no indication of culpability, namely a desire to oblige himself or unduly favour one of the parties or an improper motive in the report of the petitioner as enquiry officer. Accordingly, I hold that the impugned memo is totally without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed by Their Lordships in Chief of Army Staff v. Dharam Pal, when the charge memo issued by the respondents is without jurisdiction, it is open to this Court to quash those proceedings. In the said decision, Their Lordships have observed thus :".... Where the said notice issued without jurisdiction, the respondent would have then suffered a grave, prejudicial injury by an act which was without jurisdiction. Where the threat of a prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction, a person cannot be asked to wait for the injury to be caused to him before seeking the court's protection ...... Accordingly, this Court is justified in interfering with the charge memo issued by the respondent. 10. Under these circumstances, the impugned charge memo dated 12.1.1990 of the second respondent is quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs.