Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2134 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - quasi judicial order - Suo moto proceedings, initiated against the petitioner by the Chairman of the Debt Recovery Tribunal - interdicting the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that, where a compromise is entered into, between litigating parties, it is a contract between them, and a court has only to see that the same is lawful. Whether in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal had erred in holding that the Articles of Charge were not sustainable since they were based on quasi-judicial orders passed by the respondent in his capacity as CIT (Appeals)? HELD THAT:- There is no allegation, against the petitioner, of corrupt motives, ulterior considerations, or mala fides. The error, on the part of the petitioner, as the respondent perceives the petitioner to have committed, is only in allowing the matter to be compromised, between the Bank and the debtors, at a figure which was much less that the actual debt which, it is sought to be alleged, might have been liquidated, had the compromise not taken place. In other words, it is the commercial expediency of the decision of the petitioner, which is being sought to be called into question, in the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. To borrow the words used in the charge-sheet (whatever they may mean), what was alleged against the petitioner was “incapacity to function as a Presiding Officer in a befitting manner”. In what more “befitting” manner, placed in the circumstances in which he was, the petitioner could have acted, the charge-sheet does not, significantly, condescend to disclose. De hors the correctness, judicially examined, of the decision of the petitioner to compromise the matter by allowing the joint application filed by the Bank and the debtors, the said decision, not being alleged to be tainted by any ulterior motives, could not have legitimately constituted the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Even of the sole ground, therefore, the proceedings would be liable to be quashed in their entirety. On merits, too, however, the proceedings against the petitioner are, on the face of it, thoroughly misconceived. It is clear, from the authorities relied upon by the petitioner, of this court, that the petitioner had, when faced with the application of the Bank, and the proposal for compromise, signed by all parties, no option but to settle the disputes in terms thereof. It was not open for the petitioner to go behind the said compromise and start dissecting the compromise by examining its commercial expediency or otherwise. Any such attempt, on the part of the petitioner, would have amounted, in fact, to exceeding his authority, and the jurisdiction vested in him by law. It is ironical, therefore, that, for proceeding in the manner sanctified by authorities of this court, the petitioner has been visited with the presently impugned disciplinary proceedings, which deserve, therefore, to be eviscerated even at this juncture, without subjecting the petitioner to the ignominy of having to further negotiate the distasteful course thereof. The impugned memorandum/chargesheet dated 28th March, 2018, issued to the petitioner, as also all proceedings that follow thereupon, are held to be unsustainable on facts as well as in law and, consequently, quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
|