1. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a revenue officer for a land settlement order passed in a quasi-judicial capacity after an inordinate delay. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 558
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Amresh Shrivastava - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10590 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Muskaan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Muskaan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer require clear evidence of misconduct; mere errors do not suffice, especially when coupled with significant unexplained delay.
Headnote:(A) Judges Protection Act, 1985 - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Delay in disciplinary proceedings - Chargesheet issued after 14 years quashed due to lack of extraneous influence or misconduct - The court emphasized that mere errors in quasi-judicial orders do not warrant disciplinary action unless supported by allegations of misconduct. (Paras 4, 16, 17)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court reiterated that unexplained delay in initiating proceedings can bar such actions, especially when no misconduct is established. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, a Tehsildar, faced a chargesheet after 14 years for allegedly granting land settlement illegally. The Single Judge quashed the chargesheet due to delay, which was reversed by the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges against the Appellant were based on a wrongful order without evidence of misconduct or extraneous influence, thus quashing the chargesheet.
Issues: The main issues were whether the chargesheet fell within the scope of prior case law and whether the delay in issuance warranted quashing the chargesheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disciplinary action requires clear evidence of misconduct, and mere errors in judgment do not suffice for such proceedings. The unexplained delay in issuing the chargesheet also supported the Appellant's case.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a wrong quasi-judicial order without evidence of extraneous influence warrants disciplinary action and whether inordinate unexplained delay justifies quashing the chargesheet. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Disciplinary action for quasi-judicial orders requires evidence of misconduct or extraneous influence; unexplained inordinate delay in initiating proceedings generally favors the employee. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Mere legal errors in quasi-judicial orders without evidence of corruption or recklessness do not justify disciplinary action, and unexplained inordinate delay warrants quashing chargesheets. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and the order quashing the chargesheet restored. (Para 19 )
6. When can disciplinary action be taken against an officer for a quasi-judicial order?
Action is permissible if the officer acted with recklessness, misconduct, corrupt motives, or to unduly favor a party, or if the act reflects poorly on their integrity or devotion to duty. Mere technical violations or wrong orders without such factors do not warrant disciplinary action. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Does a wrong order passed by a quasi-judicial officer automatically imply misconduct?
No, a wrong order or error in judgment does not automatically imply misconduct or favoritism. Disciplinary action requires clear evidence of extraneous influence beyond mere legal mistakes to avoid undermining judicial independence. (Para 16 )
8. What is the effect of inordinate unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings?
Unexplained inordinate delay in initiating proceedings, despite the department's knowledge of the alleged misconduct, generally justifies quashing the chargesheet to prevent injustice and unnecessary mental distress to the employee. (Para 17 , 18 )
9. Are there exceptions where delay does not bar the initiation of departmental proceedings?
Yes, delay may not be a valid ground to stop proceedings if the department was unaware of the irregularities or if the misconduct involves material considerations such as extraneous influences and gratifications. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”) whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the Respondents, reversing the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2017, which quashed the chargesheet dated 29.04.2011 issued to the Appellant. As a result, the disciplinary proceedings and the chargesheet were revived.
2. Facts in instant case are that the Appellant was appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 15.06.1981 and was promoted to Tehsildar on 31.12.1991. Between July 1993 and September 1998, he was posted as Tehsildar in Gwalior district, where he performed various functions, including quasi-judicial duties. An application filed by Kuber Singh and Madho Singh, sons of Suraj Singh for settlement of land measuring 1.500 Hect. of survey no. 1123/Min-3 situated in Village Barua. After issuing notice, no objections were received. The gram panchayat was consulted and passed a resolution stating that the applicants were cultivating the land and had no objections to the settlement in their favour. Following the procedure as prescribed under the rules as also the statement of the Patwari, the said application was allowed subject to certain conditions. Appellant as a quasi-judicial authority passed a land settlement order dated 26.06.1997. The said order was not challenged and the same attained finality.
3. After a significant delay, a Show Cause Notice dated 21.09.2009 was issued to the Appellant by the Collector of District Gwalior. The notice alleged that the land settlement was granted to ineligible persons in an illegal manner, contrary to the rules. It further stated that the mutation order led to the land being sold, which originally vested in the State Government, causing undue benefit to the parties due to negligence and carelessness in duty.
3.1 Subsequently, Chargesheet dated 29.04.2011 was issued to the Appellant by the Commissioner, Gwalior stating that he had executed the land settlement in Survey No. 1123/min-3 illegally, which was indicative of dishonesty.
4. When the chargesheet was issued to him after 13 years, the Appellant challenged it by filing Writ Petition No. 7114/2011 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 19.10.2011, seeking protection under the provisions of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “JPA 1985”). He asserted that he had exercised his powers under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. He argued that the Orders were issued in exercise of quasi-judicial functions. He further contended that inordinate delay, without any conclusion of extraneous influence or misconduct, should bar departmental proceedings.
5. The learned Single Judge decided the Writ in favour of the Appellant, quashing the chargesheet and setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated solely on the ground of delay, with their being no explanation thereto for such delay.
6. Assailing the order passed by learned Single Judge. The Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “respondent-State”) preferred a Writ Appeal, which was allowed. The Division Bench while allowing the appeal, held that an officer who exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers exercising negligently or recklessly, or in order to confer undue favour on a person, is not acting as a judge. In situations where a government officer acts negligently or fails to meet the prescribed conditions essential for exercising statutory powers, thereby conferring undue favor on a party and compromising their reputation for integrity, good faith, or devotion to duty, departmental proceedings can be initiated if disciplinary action is not taken for violating the conduct rules.
6.1 The Division Bench relied on the decision of this Court in Union of India and others vs. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56. Consequently, the Order of the Single Judge was set as
