1) The document discusses how administrative adjudication undermines grievance redressal under disciplinary proceedings in India. It argues that quasi-judicial officers exercising judicial powers while remaining under executive control cannot do so impartially and without undue influence. 2) It analyzes diverging Supreme Court rulings on whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against quasi-judicial officers. While some rulings aim to insulate officers from executive influence to ensure neutral grievance redressal, others undermine this separation of powers. 3) Overall, the lack of clarity and consistency on this issue has compromised the neutrality of quasi-judicial officers and undermined citizens' ability to seek redressal of grievances against the government

1. Administrative Adjudication negates the grievance redressal under Disciplinary Proceedings
threat
By:
Shri Biswajit Das, Advocate, Supreme Court of India,
Managing Partner, Juris & Juris
Biswajit@jurisnjuris.con
B-4/115, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.
Governance is the only subject that occupies the public space and public discourse.
Constitution of India, as originally conceived, designed and promulgated, confined itself to the
Governance. To govern, different institutions were established with their respective roles and
functions, cumulatively called the Governance. But over the years of practice, Governance
changed its shape, size & hues.
While in theory, Separation of Power amongst the three pillars of the constitution is its basic
structure as, for the first time, propounded by the Hon’ble SC of India in the year1973 in
Keshavananda Bharti Case, same is not the case on ground. The amount of criss-crossing and
adventurism indulged in by these institutions in the name of public interest have brought in a
deadly cocktail of Governance on the platter of the governed. Instead of serving public
interest, the public discourse on ground has, surreptitiously but silently, eaten into the said
public interest.
To give one such example, let us discuss about the grievance redressal objective of the
constitution. Grievance can be public or private. Their redressal is one of the most paramount
objective of any civilization and thus the most paramount duty of public institutions. Since
citizens can feel aggrieved against the institutions themselves during the course of their
discharge of function, a separate institution called judiciary is entrusted that responsibility with
clear demarcation of their respective function. This separation of function/power is one of the
core of the constitutional doctrines. This separation of Power is recognized as sacrosanct owing
to the fact that citizens/ people grievance redressal is the bedrock of any civilization. How can a
society will fathom its existence without securing tranquility amongst its constituents?

2. A member of an institution, entrusted with grievance redressal duty, must be insulated from
the external influences to be able to serve the cause of the justice fearlessly, impartially and
fairly. This is sacrosanct to secure redressal of grievance. This principle, by and large, has been
in use when it comes to the members of the institutions of Judiciary. However the problem
begins on this count when members discharging adjudicatory functions remain under the
control of non-judicial institutions such as the Executive or Legislature. Tribunalisation is one
such example. Though through series of judicial pronouncements some semblance of balance,
and not in entirety, have been achieved to secure insulation of its members from any external
executive influence, but separation of Power in true sense have not been achieved as yet. This
has caused serious miscarriage in justice dispensation.
Another typical example of acute problem is, when the Government officers exercise quasi-
judicial function or judicial power during the tenure of their employment under the executive.
They never discharge their Quai-judicial function truthfully, fairly, fearlessly. Except those
instances of some Tribunal, by and large, these quasi judicial forums are a cause of great
concern since they discharges two functions, such as executive and quasi-judicial,
simultaneously one with government and another with aggrieved mostly against his own
employer.
Ironically, no greater service is rendered by none other than the apex Court of India when it
myopically only looked at the service jurisprudence and public interest associated with it by
completely disregarding the grievance redressal objective, which is the core philosophy of any
civilization. Of late, Courts in India have started giving more credence to public interest as
opposed to the private interest, which cumulatively form the said public interest.
In this regard it is worth noting that a three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in K. K. Dhawan1
case of 1993, while dealing with a Disciplinary Proceeding against a quasi-
judicial officer under the Govt. of India, curiously held that when an “officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial powers” acts (i) negligently or (ii) recklessly or (iii) in order to confer undue
favour on a person, he is not acting as a Judge. In other words, the immunity available to a
1
UOI v. K. K. Dhawan , (1993) 2 SCC 56

3. person discharging the judicial person will not be made available to him when he acts
negligently or recklessly or in a manner conferring undue favor to a person. In this case, Hon’ble
Court enumerated six instances when Disciplinary Proceeding can be taken against the officer
(i) if he acted in manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or
devotion to duty; (ii) there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct; (iii) if
he acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant; (iv) if he acted negligently
or omitted prescribed conditions which are essential for exercising statutory powers; (v) he
unduly favour a party, (vi) he is actuated by corrupt motive. These instances here are not
exhaustive.
The Court also held that in case of mere technical violation or because order is wrong and
action not falling under above instances, disciplinary action is not warranted. Each case will
depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated.
If one look at the aforesaid ratio carefully, one will wonder what is the parameter of these
triggering points and who will decide? What is interesting to note that, while the said order will
not be influenced by the outcome of the Disciplinary Proceeding arising out of the said order,
the party aggrieved against that order will fight its battle through the by lanes of appeals.
Strangely though, one of the litigants, that is the Govt., to those nature of dispute can punish
the said officer through its internal Disciplinary Proceeding.
It’s for anyone to guess that how much these judicial proceedings are being controlled and
influenced through these intimidating tactics of the Govt. In the absence of just and objective
insulation, the officer concerned never exercises neutrality. The private litigant suffers one
layer of negative order helplessly though with consequences that he is deprived of the first
forum of adjudication getting clearly compromised to his detriment. The doctrine of Appeal
developed judicially has its own limitation when it comes to assailing the said perverse Order.
It is interesting to note that all functions exercised under any statutes by any authority, other
than court and Tribunal, are quasi-judicial in nature. Unfortunately however most of India’s
populations don’t know about this opaque skewed adjudicatory function and practice being
under undue influence of the Governance. More strange, Courts completely look other way

4. round as they continue to uphold and consolidate the colonial-era Service Jurisprudence
making the Governance a big casualty in the hands of vantage in the Govt.
On revisiting its earlier decision, a two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar2
case in 1999, by differing with the ratio laid down in KK Dhawan
Case, has held that Disciplinary Proceeding cannot be initiated on grounds of (i) Vague or
indefinite information against the officer, (ii) in case Penalty was not imposed on assessee or
(iii) Appeal is filed against the order. Negligence in a quasi judicial adjudication is not
perceived as carelessness inadvertence or omission but as culpable negligence.
But it is pertinent to note that this case only differed the view rendered in K.K Dhawan case by
merely analyzing the service jurisprudence alone and not the doctrine of Separation of Power
or grievance redressal principles.
Once again strangely, another three-judge bench of the Hob’ble Apex Court of India in 2006 in
Duli Chand case3
once again reiterated the ratio of the K.K Dhawan case and lifted the much
desired insulation of quasi-judicial functional officers. What is striking is, there is so much of
divergence of view amongst different benches of the same court mostly swayed by the concept
of Corruption, which is clearly a criminal or quasi-criminal action, owing to erroneous and
misdirected assistance that it causes more damage than it addressed any real problem.
Unfortunately there has been no objective approach towards these separate issues
proportionately and with clarity. Instead we jumble around difference concepts and bring utter
disbalance to the concept of Governance. Taking undue advantage of this lack of clarity,
institutions like Central Visilance Commission (CVC) and Central Bureau of India (CBI) of India do
not hesitate to pry with impunity, all in the name of public interest.
This is a classic case of spider’s web where all are looser except the privileged few. Perhaps this
could be possible because of high level of illiteracy and ignorance in our society with
2
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI, (1999) 7 SCC 409
3
UOI v. Dhuli Chand, (2006) 5 SCC 680

5. hyphenated jingoism, which is exploited by the masters in power to weave us through
deviously designed Law all in the name of public interest, corruption plank.
But are you aware how much damage you sustain due to either your silence or due to your
ignorance or your innocent miscarriage?