"6. Sri Reddy is perhaps riEfhtin saying thatthe officers were not actuated [yany mala fides in passing the impugned ord Lbr. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim o the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was pted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Re dy overlooks is that we are not concerned here w the correctness or otherwise of their conclusi or of any factual malafides but with the fact that he officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed o appellate orders in regard to the same issue whi were placed before them, one of the Collector (Ap eals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court I[as,in our view, rightly criticized this conduct of the AlsistantCotlectors and the harassment to the assessetcaused by thefailure of these officers to give effpct to the orders of authorities higher to them in theIappetlate hierarchy.lt cannot be too vehemently enIfnhasizedthat it is of utmost importance that, irI disposing of the quasijudicial issues before theni,,,."r"nr" officers are bound by the decisions of theIappellate authorities. The order of the Appellte Collefctoris binding on the Assistant Collectors working wit his iurisdiction and frin the order of the Tribunal is bind fngupon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Cf,ttector. who function under the jurisdiction of the TriblI nal. The principles of f judicial discipline require that thleordersof the higher appellate authorities should be jtotlo*"0 unreservedty by the subordinate authorities. llhe mere fact that the order of the appellate authority iisnot"acceptabte"to the department - in itself an opiectionablephrase - and is the subject matter of an pppeal can furnish no ground for not following it unk[ssits operationhas been suspended by a competenltcourt.lf thishealthy
