JUDGMENT 1. - This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant, a Nayab Tehsildar, aggrieved by order dated 08.11.2012 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed in limine. 2. The facts in brief are that the Collector, Sirohi exercising powers under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958') initiated a disciplinary action against the appellant vide memorandum dated 27.06.2011. The appellant was charged for negligence in discharging his duties while dealing with the matters relating to encroachments. In the statement of allegations, it was indicated that the appellant failed to take effective steps and that he was not serious towards the matters pertaining to encroachments and, wherever action was taken, the same was done only with a view to prove the possession of the encroachers on the public land. 3. On receipt of the memorandum dated 27.06.2011, the appellant requested for inspection of certain documents, which was permitted. However, despite repeated directions to file reply, when no reply was filed, the disciplinary authority by order dated 14.12.2011 held the appellant guilty of misconduct and found him negligent in discharge of his duties. Accordingly, a penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, who vide his judgment dated 09.07.2012 upheld the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Sirohi and dismissed the appeal. 5. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 14.12.2011 and 09.07.2012 approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11166/2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by order dated 08.11.2012 observing and holding thus:- "True it is, the proceedings under Section 91 are of judicial nature and a judicial error is not a misconduct, but in the instant matter the allegation against the petitioner was not of giving any wrong finding in judicial proceedings, but of negligence while dealing with the cases under Section 91 of the Act of 1956. The disciplinary authority after considering the entire material available on record and also the explanation tendered by the petitioner arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner was quite negligent in discharging his duties. The disciplinary authority after considering the entire material available on record and also the explanation tendered by the petitioner arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner was quite negligent in discharging his duties. The disciplinary authority also arrived at the conclusion that no effort was made by the petitioner to remove the encroachment. The failing of the petitioner in discharging his duties is not a judicial error but a serious negligence that comes within the purview of misconduct. The disciplinary authority, thus, was right in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner. The second argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the order impugned is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. This argument too is bereft of merit. The disciplinary authority while serving a notice as per Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 sought an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner before submitting explanation desired to have inspection of records. The disciplinary authority permitted the petitioner to inspect the record, particulars of which were adequately given by the petitioner. No inspection was permitted relating to the records for which particulars were not given. The petitioner without raising objection for that made an inspection and submitted his explanation to the allegation levelled. After considering the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an appropriate order. If the petitioner was having any objection, then he should have raised that before submitting his explanation but that was not done. As such, I do not find any wrong with the order imposing a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958. The petition for writ, for the reasons given above, is dismissed." 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge fell in error in dismissing the writ petition, inasmuch as, the charge against the appellant was related to his alleged negligence in discharge of his judicial functions, which cannot be subject to any proceeding by way of civil, criminal or departmental, or otherwise, in spite of deciding the said judicial proceedings in negligent manner also and in fact no departmental inquiry could have been initiated against the appellant on this ground. 7. The learned counsel relied on provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to contend that the proceedings are judicial matters as indicated in the 1st Schedule of the said Act. 8. 7. The learned counsel relied on provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to contend that the proceedings are judicial matters as indicated in the 1st Schedule of the said Act. 8. Strong reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India & Ors. : (1999) 7 SCC 409 to contend that negligence in quasi-judicial adjudication is not carelessness, inadvertence or omission but a 'culpable negligence'. Reliance was also placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable : (1992) 4 SCC 54 to contend that mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of duty would not be misconduct. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have concurrently found that the appellant was negligent in performance of his duties, inasmuch as, by his actions in not effectively dealing with the encroachers and taking action only with a view to establish the possession of the encroachers on the public land, has led to encouragement to encroachers to further encroach on the public land. Despite adequate opportunity provided by the disciplinary authority, the appellant failed to file any reply to the memorandum issued to him and even when a show cause notice was issued to him, in the reply to the show cause notice, he took absolutely false pleas so as to justify his action before the disciplinary authority. 11. The learned Single Judge after thoroughly considering the pleas raised by the appellant in the writ petition has dismissed the writ petition on not finding any wrong with the order imposing a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (supra), inasmuch as, the said judgment stands overruled by later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Duli Chand, (2006) 5 SCC 680 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, which placed reliance on Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar's case held as under:- "5. v. Duli Chand, (2006) 5 SCC 680 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, which placed reliance on Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar's case held as under:- "5. The law on the subject was considered in extenso in the three-Judge Bench decision of Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan wherein it was noted that the view that no disciplinary action could be initiated against an officer in respect of judicial or quasi-judicial functions was wrong. It was further said that the officer who exercise juridical or quasi-judicial powers acting negligently or recklessly could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. The Court listed six instances when such action could be taken : (SCC p. 67, para 28) "28. (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'." 6. The Court, however, made it clear that ultimately the matter would have to depend upon the facts of a particular case. The present case would fall squarely within the fourth instance listed above. 7. The decision in K.K. Dhawan case was considered by this Court and followed in Govt. of T.N. v. K.N. Ramamurthy . In that case the Tribunal had set aside the order imposing punishment on an officer who had been discharging judicial functions. The Court was of the view that the Tribunal's action was contrary to the several judgments of this Court and the settled law on the question. 8. In 1999 another Bench of two Judges in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar considered and referred to these earlier decisions. The Court was of the view that the Tribunal's action was contrary to the several judgments of this Court and the settled law on the question. 8. In 1999 another Bench of two Judges in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar considered and referred to these earlier decisions. However, the Court appears to have reverted back to the earlier view of the matter where disciplinary action could be taken against an officer discharging judicial functions only where there was an element of culpability involved. Since in that particular case there was no evidence whatsoever that the employee had shown any favour to the assessee to whom refund had been made, it was held that the proceedings against him would not lie. In fact the Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings at the stage of the issuance of charge-sheet to the charged officer. 9. In our opinion, Nagarkar case was contrary to the view expressed in K.K. Dhawan case. The decision in K.K. Dhawan being that of a larger Bench would prevail. The decision in Nagarkar case therefore does not correctly represent the law. Inasmuch as the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court were passed on the law enunciated in Nagarkar case this appeal must be allowed. The impugned decisions are accordingly set aside and the order of punishment upheld. There will be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) 13. It is strange that a decision which has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court nearly seven years back was cited at the Bar. The judgment in case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable has no applicability to the facts of the present case. 14. Applying the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan : (1993) 2 SCC 56 as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Duli Chand (supra) once a finding is reached that the appellant has acted negligently even in discharge of his judicial function, he can very well be proceeded for disciplinary proceedings and, consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. Consequently, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******