Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Amresh Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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. Follow
Disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer require clear evidence of misconduct; mere errors do not suffice, especially when coupled with significant unexplained delay.
Judicial officers can face disciplinary action for misconduct, but not for mere errors in judgment, emphasizing the need for judicial independence.
Quasi-judicial officers protected from disciplinary action for errors in judicial functions absent corruption or mala fides; vague, delayed charges quashed.
Unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings can lead to prejudice against the accused, and mere negligence does not amount to misconduct as defined under disciplinary rules.
Mere errors in quasi-judicial functions of Assessing Officer do not constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings absent mala fides, recklessness or corruption.
Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings does not vitiate them if explained by CBI investigation without proven prejudice to the officer.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
