SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P.&ORS. – Respondent
C.A. No.-001159-001159 / 2015 22-01-2015



Advocates:
T. N. SINGH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP (C)No.16418 of 2014)

VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH

….APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.& ORS.

..RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the

judgment dated 27th January, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal

No. 482/2013. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench

affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the learned Single

Judge in Writ Petition No.4867/12 preferred by the appellant

challenging the Departmental Proceedings initiated against him

vide Memorandum dated 29th June, 2012.

The appellant during posting as Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Jabalpur in exercise of powers conferred under Section

57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, he passed an

order dated 3.1.2009 in case No.18/A-6-A/2006-07 Smt. Munnibai

wife of Roop Chand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. By the said

order, the appellant conferred Bhumidhari rights in favour of the

applicant Munnibai over certain lands, which were given to her

ancestors as Kotwars by the Malguzar in lieu of service rendered

by them to the village community.

The Collector on knowing about the said order vide order,

dated 5.5.2010 took a suo-moto revision and set aside the order

passed by the appellant. Later, a charge sheet was served upon the

appellant alleging misconduct under Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Civil

1

Digitally signed by

Rajni Mukhi

Date: 2015.01.29

15:26:37 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

Services Conduct Rules, 1965. A show cause notice was issued on

him to which he filed a reply. On being not satisfied with his

reply, departmental proceedings were initiated by the

Commissioner, Jabalpur, Sambhag by order dated 29.6.2012. The

english version of the charge sheet reads as follows:

“OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR, SAMBHAG

CHARGE-SHEET

Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14-K of Madhya

Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the Administrative

Officer herein has levelled following charge

against Sri Virendra Kumar Singh, Joint

Collector, the then Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Jabalpur.

CHARGE No. 1: During the posting as

Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jabalpur in

Case No. 18/A-6A/2006-07 Smt. Munnibai wife of

Roop Chand, originally resident Kosamghat,

Tehsil and District-Jabalpur, against the law an

order has been passed by you to accord

Bhumiswami right by way of separating the land

as service land having new K. No. 116, 117 216

of village – Kosamghat.

The said act of yours comes within the

purview of misconduct under Rule-3 of Madhya

Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. In

this way you having done such an act you made

yourself liable to be proceeded under Rule 14 of

Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for a

departmental proceedings.

Sd/- (Prabhat Parashar)

Commissioner,

Jabalpur, Sambhag”

According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant

had passed quasi-judicial order in exercise of power conferred

under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Though it was open to the Competent Authority to reverse the

finding, if it was found illegal, there was no scope to initiate

2

any Departmental Proceedings against the officer who passed the

same in his quasi judicial capacity. It was further submitted that

there is no misconduct on the part of the appellant as alleged.

Such submission was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and

the said view of Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench

of the High Court.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits

that the appellant has filed another Writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top