$. Sri Reddy isperhaps in saying that the offrcers were not actuated by any mala frdes in passirE {he impugned o Theyperhaps genuinely felt that the claim f the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was ,the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri ddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here the conectness or otherwise of their conclus nor of any factual malafides but with the fact tha the ofiicers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-pas two appellate orders in regard to the same issue ich were placed before them, one of the Collector( ls) aM the other of the Tribunal. The High Cou has, in our view, rightly criticized this conduct of the istant Collectors and the harassment to the asses e caused by the failure of these officers togive to the orders of authorities higher to them in t e appellate hierarchy. lt cannot be too vehemently e phasized that it is of utrnost importance that, disposing of the quasijudicial issues before t m, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of t e appellate authorities. The order of the Appellte Co lector is binding on lhe Assistant Collectors working ithin hisjurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is bi ing upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate lectors who function under thejurisdiction of the T nal. The principles of judicial discipline require that orders of the higher appellate authorities should followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities The mere fact that the order of the appellate autho y is not "acceptaue" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of a appeal can furnish no ground for not following it u less its operation has beer -ended by a com nt court. lf this healthy
