JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 pertaining to order of punishment of reduction to a lower rank and for issuance of direction to restore the petitioner to his original position with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was initially appointed by the Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department, Government of Bihar. In pursuance to advertisement published by the Financial Services, due to unblemished service record, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. Thereafter, he was posted at Dhanbad Circle on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department. While continuing as such, the petitioner received one show cause dated 09.03.2013 as contained in memo issued by the Joint Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad whereby explanation has been sough for as to why the cases have been disposed of at the instance of the petitioner during the pendency of the revisions before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and subsequently, charge-sheet was also served on 20.02.2013 as per Annexure-2 and 2/1 series to the writ application. Due to depression and mental agony, the petitioner could not file any reply to show cause as he was under treatment and advised to have complete bed rest. The respondents conducted the inquiry ex-parte and concluded the same. After conclusion of the inquiry, the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority basing on the report of the inquiry officer passed the order of punishment of reduction to a lower rank in view of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1930 vide order dated 11.02.2014 which is impugned in this writ application. It has been submitted in the writ application that vide oder dated 26.06.2009, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (Appeal) Dhanbad, Division, Dhanbad has been pleased to dispose of the Appeal by setting aside the order of lower court and directing the present petitioner-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department to dispose of the Appeal as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. In pursuance to the direction of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department passed in the Appeals, the petitioner, heard and disposed of the Appeal vide order dated 07.07.2010, which was remanded to him. In pursuance to the direction of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department passed in the Appeals, the petitioner, heard and disposed of the Appeal vide order dated 07.07.2010, which was remanded to him. Since as per the direction of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner disposed of the said appeals, no latches lie on the part of the petitioner in disposing of the said appeal. It has further been disclosed in the writ application that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department on 08.07.2010, revision was preferred but the petitioner heard and disposed of the appeals on 07.07.2010 and no information whatsoever was furnished before the petitioner with regard to filing of the revision against the appellate order. It has further been submitted that the revision has also been disposed of by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and no financial loss has been caused to the Government. 3. Per-contra, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 repelling the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that on perusal of the order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-6) it is evident that when the petitioner did not submit reply to the 2nd Show cause notice then again extension of time was granted to enable the petitioner to furnish reply to the 2nd show cause notice. However, the petitioner did not submit his reply to the 2nd Show cause notice. The inquiry proceeded as under rules and regulations. Due to misconduct on part of the petitioner loss to the tune of Rs.96,02,119.83/- has been caused to the State Exchequer. The same has been established upon a full fledged departmental enquiry and the guilt of the petitioner has been established after a full fledged departmental proceeding which has been conducted totally in accordance with law. As such, the present writ application is liable to be dismissed. 4. Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents to meet certain queries made by this Court. (A) On the point of availability of forum of appeal against the order dated 11.02.2014 contained in Resolution No. 457- The respondents have stated as per Rule 56-69 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, there is a provision for preferring appeal to Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand. (A) On the point of availability of forum of appeal against the order dated 11.02.2014 contained in Resolution No. 457- The respondents have stated as per Rule 56-69 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, there is a provision for preferring appeal to Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand. The Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated 09.04.2015 has formulated the procedure for disposal of appeals preferred under Rule 57(5) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules as evident from Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit. (B) On the point of ante dated order passed by the petitioner-The respondents have submitted that the petitioner has passed orders by ante dating the same. In the matter of M/s Gopal Coke Industries suo moto revision was filed on 08.07.2010 whereas just one day prior to that i.e. on 07.07.2010 the reassessment order has been passed in the light of the order of the appellate authority. In the case of M/s Rani Sati Coke Manufacturing the reassessment order was passed on 23.04.2010. The records of the case reveal that attendance for hearing on 14.05.2010 has been filed which does not bear signature of any officer. The photo copies of the same have been annexed as Annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit. (C) On the point whether the petitioner was informed, not to pass any order in view of the order passed by the appellate authority-A query to this effect was made from the Office of the DCCT, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad vide letter dated 09.02.2016. However, the DCCT, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad has informed the head quarters vide its letter dated 10.02.2016 that no such order is available in the office as evident from Annexure-C to the supplementary counter-affidavit. (D) On the point as to whether an official discharging official duty can be made liable for any act done in discharge quasi-judicial functions-The respondents state and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Duli Chand, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 680 has clarified the law with regard to departmental enquiry against quasi-judicial exercise of power as Honble Apex Court has held that the law laid down in Zunjarro Bhikaji Nagarkar's case does not correctly represent the law. The view expressed in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan is the correct law. The view expressed in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan is the correct law. Paragraph no.5 of the judgment of Duli Chand's case deals with the correct proposition of law. (E) On the point that the loss caused to State Exchequer is real loss or hypothetical loss-The respondents submitted that the petitioner passed reassessment orders in favour of the dealers pursuant to the order of remand. The result of the reassessment order was that the tax liability of the dealers were reduced drastically. As such the dealers were benefitted and the revenue suffered loss of tax as compared to the tax liability as determined in the original assessment order. As such there has been actual loss of revenue to the State Exchequer and the loss with regard to different dealers consequent upon the assessment in case of different dealers have been stated therein and the petitioner by his conduct of passing the reassessment order has reduced the tax liability by causing loss to the State Exchequer. It has further been submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Gujarat Vs. Hitendra Vrajlal Ashara & Another, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 614 : [2015 (1) JLJR (SC) 150], it has been held that it is a well-accepted principle of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as an appellate court and its jurisdiction circumscribed and confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation to the principles of natural justice and in the case of State of U.P. & Another Vs. Man Mohan Sinha, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 has been quoted. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the charge which has been initiated against the petitioner is a vague one, since no loss of revenue has been specified therein. Therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing major punishment of reduction in rank is actuated by mala fide and smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the charge which has been initiated against the petitioner is a vague one, since no loss of revenue has been specified therein. Therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing major punishment of reduction in rank is actuated by mala fide and smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner in pursuance to the direction of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department passed in appeals, the petitioner heard and disposed of the appeal vide order dated 07.07.2010 which has been remanded to him and the said appeals were disposed of by the petitioner in consonance with the provision as contained in Commercial Taxes Department statute. Therefore, there was no absolute latches on the part of the petitioner in disposing of the appeals. Moreover, there was no stay order or any restraint order of the Revisional Authority restraining the petitioner from passing any order in compliance to the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Learned senior counsel further submits that the alleged financial loss is not borne out of records, it is only a hypothetical assessment. But to the best of knowledge of the petitioner that in the revision cases passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Ranchi, no financial loss has been caused to the Government. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment of the reduction dated 11.02.2014 to a lower rank being not sustainable, is liable to be set aside. 6. As against this learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shivani Verma, J.C to A.A.G, learned counsel for the respondents has assiduously submitted that the charges against the petitioner are grave and during the inquiry, complicity of the petitioner is that he was hand in glove with different industries has surfaced and, therefore, on the basis of the proved charges, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has been granted adequate opportunity but as evident from inquiry report, the petitioner chose not to participate in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, there is absolutely no procedural irregularities/infirmity so far as from the initiation departmental proceeding till its culmination is concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has been granted adequate opportunity but as evident from inquiry report, the petitioner chose not to participate in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, there is absolutely no procedural irregularities/infirmity so far as from the initiation departmental proceeding till its culmination is concerned. 7. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the revilized submissions and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts and reasons:- (i) While continuing as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, the charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has extended benefit to the assessees and Government was put to a loss for which the petitioner is prima facie responsible. He has not discharged duties and responsibilities as Tax Assessing Officer properly. It is being alleged that in Dhanbad Circle petitioner was found guilty of extending benefits to business organization, thereby putting loss to the Government Revenue by passing the amended Tax Assessment in the light of the appellate order pending before the Court of learned Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand Ranchi. Indisputably, the petitioner in pursuance to the direction of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department passed the order in appeal on 07.07.2010 and the said appeals were remanded by the appellate authority and the petitioner was never informed regarding pendency of the revision cases before the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Therefore, the petitioner discharged his officer's duties with sincerity. Hence, there has been no laxity and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, in disposing of the said appeals and ultimately in the revision petition disposed of by the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, no alleged financial loss has been caused to the Government and, therefore from the very initiation of charge till its culmination, the petitioner has become scapegoat and victim of the circumstances. (ii) On perusal of the inquiry report, it is quite apparent that the charge alleged against the petitioner has not been discussed nor the charge of ante dating have been proved so as to fasten guilt on the petitioner. Therefore, the inquiry report is perverse and the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of perverse inquiry report being legally unsustainable, is liable to be quashed. 8. Therefore, the inquiry report is perverse and the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of perverse inquiry report being legally unsustainable, is liable to be quashed. 8. On the cumulative effect of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of punishment dated 11.02.2014 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application being legally unsustainable, is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the petitioner to his original position with consequential service benefits. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.