Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Jai Kumar Pillai, J.
Virendra Kumar Katare – Petitioner
Versus
General Administration Department And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 189 of 2020
Decided On : 04-05-2026
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 -- S. 3 -- extraordinary jurisdiction of writ Court -- quashing of departmental charge sheet -- mutation order alleged to be erroneous -- auction proceedings alleged to be suffering from legal infirmities -- such errors of judgments made during lawful exercise of statutory powers cannot be categorised as administrative misconduct -- no charge sheet can be issued for taking a view in quasi-judicial matter unless specific mala fides, corruption or illicit gratification are alleged and proven -- actions of petitioner fall within protective ambit of Judges (Protection) Act -- impugned charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings quashed -- respondents directed to consider name of petitioner for promotion strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by quashed proceedings. (1993) 2 SCC 56, (2007) 1 SCC 338 and 2025 SCC Online SC 693 followed. 2024 SCC Online MP 7916 and 2024 SCC Online MP 7358 relied on. [Paras 18 to 23, 27 & 28
(2) Departmental Enquiry -- delay -- departmental enquiry initiated after unexplained delay of 6 years -- alleged misconduct was within knowledge of department from beginning -- proceedings vitiated. 2025 SCC Online SC 693 followed. 1999 SCC L&S 646 and (2007) 14 SCC 49 referred to [Para 25
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuq- 226 & U;k;kèkh'k ¼laj{k.k½ vfèkfu;e] 1985 & èkkjk 3 & fjV U;k;ky; dh vlkèkkj.k vfèkdkfjrk & foÒkxh; vkj¨ii= dk vfÒ[kaMu & ukekarj.k vkns'k xyr g¨us dk vfÒdFku & uhykeh dk;Zokgh fofèkd 'kSfFkY;¨a ls xzLr g¨us dk vfÒdFku & dkuwuh 'kfä;¨a d¢ fofèkiw.kZ mi;¨x d¢ n©jku fd, x, fu.kZ;¨a dh ,slh xyfr;¨a d¨ ç'kklfud vopkj d¢ oxZ esa ugÈ j[kk tk ldrk & U;kf;ddYi ekeys esa fdlh n`f"Vd¨.k dks viukus d¢ fy, vkj¨ii= tkjh ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk] tc rd fd fofufnZ"V vln~Òko] Òz"Vkpkj ;k voSèk ifjr¨"k.k dk vfÒdFku ugÈ fd;k tk, rFkk mls lkfcr ugÈ fd;k tk, & ;kph dh dkjZokà U;k;kèkh'k ¼laj{k.k½ vfèkfu;e d¢ laj{k.k dh ifjf/k esa vkrh gS & vkf{kIr vkj¨ii= rFkk leLr ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokgh vfÒ[kafMr & çR;FkÊx.k d¨ ç¨Uufr d¢ fy, ;kph d¢ uke ij] vfÒ[kafMr dk;Zokgh ls çÒkfor gq, fcuk] vfrfu;efu"Brk ls fofèk d¢ vuqlkj fopkj djus dk funs'kA ¼1993½ 2 ,llhlh 56] ¼2007½ 1 ,llhlh 338 rFkk 2025 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,llh 693 vuqlfjrA 2024 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,eih 7916 rrk 2024 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,eih 7358 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 18 ls 23] 27 ,oa 28
¼2½ foÒkxh; tk¡p & foyac & Ng o"kZ d¢ Li"Vhdj.kjfgr foyac d¢ i'pkr~ foÒkxh; tk¡p vkjaÒ dh xà & vfÒdfFkr vopkj vkjaÒ ls gh foÒkx dh tkudkjh esa Fkk & dk;Zokgh nwf"krA 2025 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,llh 693 vuqlfjrA 1999 ,llhlh ,y&,l 646 rFkk ¼2007½ 14 ,llhlh 49 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 25
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges delayed charge sheet for 2013 quasi-judicial acts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. protection under judges act; no charges without mala fides; delay vitiates. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondents allege misconduct, corruption overriding quasi-judicial shield. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. quasi-judicial actions protected unless corruption or recklessness proven. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. vague charges, delay justify quashing absent impropriety evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. charge sheet quashed; review dpc directed. (Para 28) |
ORDER :
Jai Kumar Pillai, J.
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the charge sheet dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 2. By way of the impugned charge sheet, the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings for a cause of action pertaining to the year 2013.
2. The petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned charge sheet and all consequential proceedings, declaring the same as void ab-initio. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents to conduct a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Joint Collector to consider his name, and to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action.
Facts of the Case
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Naib-Tehsildar on 14.08.1996. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Tehsildar on 08.01.2003, and was further promoted as a Deputy Collector vide order dated 28.10.2014. Presently, the petitioner is discharging his duties as Deputy Collector, Dhar.
4. In the year 2013, the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Ratlam. While performing his statutory quasi-judicial and executive functions, the petitioner passed an order in accordance with law with regard to attached land bearing Survey No. 173, area 2.000 Hectares, and conducted auction proceedings in respect of the said property.
5. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, he was directly served with the impugned charge sheet dated 25.06.2019 without any prior show-cause notice. The charge sheet levels four specific charges against him regarding acts discharged during his tenure as Tehsildar in the year 2013.
6. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-related and pertain to the auction of the attached property (Survey No. 173), which the petitioner claims was done pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 5530/2012 and upheld in W.P. No. 7250/2013. Charge Nos. 3 and 4 relate to an order dated 16.04.2013 passed in Case No. 18/A-6/12-13, whereby mutation was directed on the basis of a will.
Contentions of the Petitioner
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner acted as a quasi-judicial officer exercising powers conferred under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7916 (Premnarayan Vs. State of M.P.) and 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7358 (Kailash Bundela Vs. State of M.P.).
8. It is further contended that the petitioner, discharging quasi- judicial functions, cannot be issued a charge sheet for merely passing an alleged wrong order without any allegation that the order was influenced by extraneous factors or gratification. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693 (Amresh Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.).
9. The petitioner strongly urges that the charge sheet, issued on 25.06.2019 for events of 2013, suffers from an unexplained and inordinate delay of six years. It is argued that such belated initiation of proceedings causes serious prejudice and vitiates the entire inquiry.
10. Lastly, the petitioner contends that the charges leveled against him are entirely vague, bogus, and unspecific. Charge Nos
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
