1. Since the questions involved in these matters are identical, on the joint request of the parties, matters are heard together analogously and decided by this common order.

Facts are taken from W.P. No.2390/2012.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet (Annexure P-1) dated Nil July, 2011. The main ground of challenge to the charge sheet is that petitioner cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for exercise of quasi judicial powers. It is contended by Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner passed the orders in various cases wherein he exercised his quasi judicial power in the capacity of Tahsildar. If the orders were erroneous, the same could have been challenged before the higher forum but passing of an erroneous order cannot be subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. He relied on (1992) 3 SCC 124 (Union of India and others v. A.N. Saxena) and (1993) 2 SCC 49 (Union of India and another v. R.K.Desai).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana) .

4. In W.P. 3187/12 also the charge sheet dated 16.4.2012 is under challenge. In this case also the allegations against the petitioner are regarding his decisions taken in the capacity of Tahsildar which were set aside by the higher forum.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. If the charge sheet Annexure P-1 (in W.P.No.2390/12) is perused, it shows that specific allegations are made against the petitioner that he has given benefit to ineligible persons. It is further stated that the petitioner has not followed the procedure prescribed in the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Thus, the allegations of dereliction of duty and negligence etc. are made against the petitioner.

7. In W.P. No. 3187/12 the similar allegations are made against the petitioner. In addition, it is mentioned that the petitioner has passed illegal orders contrary to rules with a view to provide illegal benefits to the applicants of revenue matters. Thus, allegations of acting with ulterior motive are also alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of A.N.Saxena and R.K.Desai (supra). These judgments were again considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. K.K.Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56. In para 28 the apex Court opined that disciplinary action can be taken in following cases, which reads as under:-

“28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercise judicial or quasi judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases:

(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;

(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;

(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;

(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;

(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;

(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago “though the bri