Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Quasi-Judicial Officers: Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 01, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 417

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a government officer be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for errors in judgment while exercising quasi-judicial powers? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, clarifying the circumstances under which such actions are permissible. The core issue revolved around whether a Tehsildar’s land settlement order, later deemed incorrect, warranted disciplinary action despite a significant delay and the absence of allegations of extraneous influence. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Amresh Shrivastava, was initially appointed as Naib Tehsildar on June 15, 1981, and subsequently promoted to Tehsildar on December 31, 1991. Between July 1993 and September 1998, while serving as Tehsildar in Gwalior district, he performed quasi-judicial duties. In one instance, Kuber Singh and Madho Singh applied for the settlement of land measuring 1.500 Hect. of survey no. 1123/Min-3 in Village Barua.

After issuing the required notice and receiving no objections, the gram panchayat affirmed that the applicants were cultivating the land and had no objections to the settlement in their favor. Following the established procedure and the Patwari’s statement, the appellant approved the application on June 26, 1997, subject to certain conditions. This order was not challenged and attained finality.

However, after a delay, a Show Cause Notice dated September 21, 2009, was issued by the Collector of District Gwalior, alleging that the land settlement was granted to ineligible persons illegally, contrary to the rules. The notice further stated that the mutation order led to the land being sold, which originally vested in the State Government, causing undue benefit to the parties due to negligence and carelessness in duty. Subsequently, a Chargesheet dated April 29, 2011, was issued by the Commissioner, Gwalior, stating that the appellant had executed the land settlement in Survey No. 1123/min-3 illegally, indicative of dishonesty.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant challenged the chargesheet by filing Writ Petition No. 7114/2011 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on October 19, 2011, seeking protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985. He argued that he had exercised his powers under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and that the orders were issued in exercise of quasi-judicial functions. He also contended that the inordinate delay, without any conclusion of extraneous influence or misconduct, should bar departmental proceedings.

The learned Single Judge decided the Writ in favor of the Appellant, quashing the chargesheet and setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated solely on the ground of delay, with there being no explanation thereto for such delay.

Assailing the order passed by learned Single Judge, the Respondent-State preferred a Writ Appeal, which was allowed. The Division Bench held that an officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers exercising negligently or recklessly, or in order to confer undue favor on a person, is not acting as a judge. The Division Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. K.K. Dhawan1. Consequently, the Order of the Single Judge was set aside, reviving the chargesheet, while also directing for the completion of the departmental inquiry expeditiously.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of several legal provisions:

• Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: This section pertains to the powers exercised by the appellant as a Tehsildar in passing the land settlement order.
• Judges Protection Act, 1985: The appellant sought protection under this Act, arguing that the chargesheet was related to actions taken in his quasi-judicial capacity.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The chargesheet did not fall within the scope of the decision in K.K. Dhawan, as the allegations merely suggested that the order was wrong and not in accordance with law, without any allegations of extraneous influence, bribery, or gratification.
• Relied on Virendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, where departmental proceedings were quashed due to inordinate delay and absence of allegations of extraneous influence.
• Cited Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and Others, arguing that an error in judgment by a quasi-judicial officer does not automatically imply misconduct or favouritism.
• Emphasized the 14-year delay in issuing the chargesheet as excessive and unexplained.

Respondent-State’s Arguments:

• The appellant, as a Revenue Officer and quasi-judicial officer, was bound by the statute to determine the eligibility of the person for the grant of settlement.
• The illegal order passed by the appellant indicated dishonesty.
• Time should not be considered a factor in such matters where departmental proceedings are initiated against an employee.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the chargesheet issued to the Appellant by the Respondent-State would fall within the scope of observations that have been carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case (supra)?
2. Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years) would in itself be a ground for quashing the chargesheet issued to the appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by two primary factors: the nature of the charges against the appellant and the inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized that the chargesheet primarily alleged a wrongful order without any evidence of extraneous influence or dishonesty. Additionally, the unexplained delay of 14 years in issuing the chargesheet weighed heavily against the continuation of departmental proceedings.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the arguments and the existing legal framework to arrive at its decision. The Court noted that the charges against the appellant did not indicate any dishonesty or extraneous influence, which are critical factors for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of timely action in such matters, citing previous judgments where delays were deemed unjust and detrimental to the employee.

The Court quoted:

“though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great.”

“each case depends on its facts, and absolute rules cannot be postulated.”

“continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee for the mistakes committed by the department in initiating disciplinary proceedings.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Disciplinary proceedings against quasi-judicial officers for errors in judgment require evidence of dishonesty, extraneous influence, or actions reflecting negatively on their integrity.
• ✓ Inordinate and unexplained delays in initiating departmental proceedings can be grounds for quashing the chargesheet.
• ✓ Timely action is crucial in disciplinary matters to avoid causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that disciplinary actions against quasi-judicial officers should not be initiated lightly, especially in the absence of clear evidence of misconduct or extraneous influence. The judgment also underscores the importance of timely action in such matters, reiterating that inordinate delays can be detrimental to the employee and undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion

In Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the order of the Single Judge, thereby quashing the chargesheet against the appellant. The Court emphasized that the chargesheet alleged a wrongful order without indications of extraneous factors or dishonesty, and the inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings was a valid ground for quashing the chargesheet.