The judgment establishes the principle that quasi-judicial authorities are protected when acting in good faith and prompt action, and that mere mistakes in quasi-judicial orders do not amount to misconduct.

Umesh Chandra Maheshwari, J.

1. The petitioner, State of Madhya Pradesh, through its Secretary has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'The Tribunal') passed in Original Application No. 2317/00 on 22-1-2002 and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the same.

2. For the purpose of disposal of this petition the facts that are necessary to be stated are that the respondent No. 1, Shriniwas Sharma, was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Tendukheda district Damoh and he was having the charge of Tendukheda as well as Jabera Tahsils. While he was posted at the aforesaid places, certain trees were illegally felled by several persons of that concerning areas without obtaining any permission from the Collector as required under sections 240 and 241 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Taking note of the same the respondent No. 1 had initiated certain proceedings under section 253 of the said M.P. L. R. Code and after inquiry imposed penalty on the concerned bhumiswamis.

3. The Petitioner/State after preliminary enquiry issued charge-sheet dated 3-2-1998 to the respondent No. 1 through the Commissioner Sagar. According to the charge-sheet, the respondent No. 1 had granted permission to the concerned bhumiswamis for lifting the timber which was the resultant of illegal felling. After service of the charge-sheet, the respondent No. 1 submitted his reply. In view of the reply filed by the respondent No. 1, the competent authority dropped the proceedings that had been initiated against the respondent No. 1, on 27-9-1998, but, at the same time, the Commissioner, Sagar has directed the Collector Damoh for taking up all the concerning Revenue cases in revision and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It was further directed that if the applicants/respondent No. 1's integrity was found to be doubtful then the Departmental action be started de novo against him.

4. As pleaded, subsequently the State Government passed the order dated 28-12-1999 under Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 whereby the order of the Commissioner for closing the disciplinary proceeding was cancelled under the powers of the review jurisdiction and departmental enquiry against the respondent No. 1 was reinitiated and he was put under suspension by order dated 13-4-2000 in view of the pendency of the departmental enquiry.

5. Against the order passed by the State Government for departmental enquiry and order of suspension of the respondent No. 1 the respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal in Original application No. 2317/2000. The same was admitted for hearing on 26-4-2000 and during pendency of the O. A. the operation of the order of suspension dated 13-4-2000 of the respondent No. 1 was stayed. During the pendency of the said O.A. the appointed Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23-6-2000. Thereafter, the State Government passed the order dated 7-3-2001 imposing the punishment of stoppage of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved the respondent No. 1 amended his petition and called in question the defensibility of the order of the State Government dated 7-3-2001. In spite of grant of several opportunities, the petitioner did not file any reply relating to amended part of the petition to the O.A. filed by the respondent No. 1.

6. It was urged before the Tribunal that the State Government as per Rule 29 of the M.P. Civil Services (C.C.&A) Rules, 1966 could not have initiated the proceedings against the respondent No. 1 without first issuing show cause notice to him. The respondent No. 1 had taken the stand that as per the principle of the natural justice the opportunity of hearing was not conferred at the stage of preliminary inquiry on which the charge sheet was issued and hence, the issue of impugned