The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Amresh Shrivastava v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others., has allowed an appeal against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had revived a disciplinary chargesheet issued to the appellant, a former Tehsildar, after an inordinate delay of 14 years. The apex court set aside the High Court's order and restored the decision of the learned Single Judge, who had originally quashed the chargesheet. The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings and provides significant protection to officers exercising quasi-judicial functions in good faith.

Background of the Disciplinary Action:

The appellant, appointed as Naib Tehsildar in 1981 and promoted to Tehsildar in 1991, faced disciplinary action stemming from a land settlement order he passed in June 1997 while serving in Gwalior district. The order, issued on an application for settlement of land after due process including notice and consultation with the local Gram Panchayat, was never challenged and attained finality.

However, after a lapse of 12 years, in September 2009, the Collector of Gwalior issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, alleging that the land settlement was granted illegally to ineligible persons, causing undue benefit and loss to the State due to negligence. Subsequently, in April 2011, a chargesheet was issued by the Commissioner, Gwalior, alleging dishonesty in executing the land settlement.

Challenge to the Chargesheet and High Court's Divergent Views:

The appellant challenged the chargesheet before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2011, arguing protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, as he had exercised quasi-judicial powers under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. He also contended that the inordinate delay, absent any allegations of extraneous influence or misconduct, should bar the disciplinary proceedings.

The learned Single Judge sided with the appellant, quashing the chargesheet solely based on the unexplained and excessive delay. However, the Division Bench, on appeal by the State, reversed this order. The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. K.K. Dhawan, holding that an officer exercising quasi-judicial powers negligently or to unduly favor someone is not acting as a judge and can face disciplinary action for violating conduct rules. Consequently, the chargesheet was revived.

Supreme Court's Analysis: Distinguishing K.K. Dhawan and Emphasizing Good Faith:

The appellant's counsel before the Supreme Court argued that the allegations in the show-cause notice and chargesheet merely suggested an incorrect order, lacking any imputation of extraneous influence, bribery, or gratification. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Virendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, which held that departmental proceedings should not be initiated against a revenue officer solely for an incorrect quasi-judicial order, absent allegations of extraneous influence.

The Supreme Court, concurring with this line of reasoning, distinguished the present case from the principles laid down in K.K. Dhawan. The court observed that while K.K. Dhawan carved out exceptions for disciplinary action against quasi-judicial officers acting with recklessness, misconduct, or corrupt motives, the charges against the appellant appeared to stem from a potentially erroneous order passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty or extraneous factors. The power exercised by the appellant in passing the land settlement order, in the absence of any malafide intent, did not warrant disciplinary proceedings. The court found that the appellant's case aligned with the protection afforded to quasi-judicial officers making errors in judgment, as established in precedents like Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and Others and Krishna Prasad Verma through Lrs. vs. State of Bihar and Others. These judgments emphasized that mere incorrect legal decisions do not automatically equate to misconduct warranting disciplinary action, especially without allegations of extraneous influences.

Quashing the Chargesheet Due to Inordinate Delay:

Addressing the second crucial aspect of the case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the impact of delay on disciplinary proceedings varies. However, in the present scenario, the court found the 14-year delay in issuing the chargesheet to be excessive and unexplained. Drawing reference to its earlier decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another and P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, the Supreme Court reiterated that initiating or continuing departmental proceedings after an undue and unexplained delay is unjust, causing mental distress and reputational damage to the employee for mistakes attributable to the department's inaction.

Conclusion and Order:

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the order of the learned Single Judge, thereby quashing the chargesheet issued to the appellant. The court held that the charges against the appellant pertained to a potentially wrongful order passed in good faith, not warranting disciplinary action, especially after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 years. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to quasi-judicial officers acting within their jurisdiction without malafide intent and underscores the need for timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The court, however, refrained from imposing any costs.

  JUDGES (PROTECTION) ACT, 1985