Summary
A Tehsildar was chargesheeted in 2011 for a land settlement order he had passed in 1997 in exercise of quasi-judicial powers, the charge being that the settlement was illegal and indicative of dishonesty. The Supreme Court held that the charge amounted to no more than an allegation of a wrong order, with no material of extraneous influence or gratification, and so fell outside the categories in K.K. Dhawan that permit disciplinary action for quasi-judicial orders; it further held that unexplained inordinate delay in initiating proceedings, where the department knew of the alleged misconduct, itself justified quashing the chargesheet.
Issues
- Whether the chargesheet against a revenue officer for a quasi-judicial land settlement order falls within the situations identified in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan in which disciplinary action may be taken for the exercise of quasi-judicial powers.
- Whether inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing a chargesheet is by itself a ground to quash it.
Provisions considered
- Section 57(2), Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959The appellant passed the land settlement order of 26.06.1997 in exercise of powers under this provision, after notice, consultation with the gram panchayat and the Patwari's statement; the order was never challenged and attained finality. The Court treated it as a quasi-judicial order without construing the provision. (¶¶ 2, 4, 16)
- Whole Act, Judges (Protection) Act, 1985The appellant invoked the Act's protection in his writ petition against the chargesheet. The Court did not construe the Act; it decided the matter on the principles governing disciplinary action for quasi-judicial orders laid down in K.K. Dhawan and later cases. (¶¶ 4, 15, 16)
Held
- Disciplinary action over the exercise of quasi-judicial powers is permissible only in the situations identified in K.K. Dhawan, such as conduct reflecting on integrity or good faith, prima facie recklessness or misconduct, negligence or omission of conditions essential to the statutory power, undue favour to a party, or corrupt motive; mere technical violations or a wrong order outside these instances do not warrant disciplinary action, and the instances are a guide rather than exhaustive rules. (¶ 15)
- The charge that the land settlement was illegal and indicative of dishonesty, unsupported by any material of extraneous influence or gratification in the show-cause notice or chargesheet, amounts only to an allegation of a wrongful order passed in good faith; a Tehsildar's quasi-judicial settlement order of that kind cannot found disciplinary proceedings. Earlier decisions (Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, Krishna Prasad Verma) that a wrong quasi-judicial order alone does not imply misconduct support this view. (¶¶ 9, 16)
- Whether delay justifies stopping departmental proceedings at the chargesheet stage varies from case to case. Where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating proceedings although the alleged misconduct was within the department's knowledge, the answer favours the employee; but where the department was unaware of the irregularity, or the misconduct indicates extraneous influence or gratification, delay by itself will not scuttle the proceedings. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Division Bench judgment dated 30.04.2019 set aside and the Single Judge's order dated 26.04.2017 quashing the chargesheet dated 29.04.2011 restored. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.