Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 18 (MP)

Himmatsingh v. State of M. P.

2005-01-03

S.K.GANGELE

body2005
ORDER 1. Earlier this petition was filed before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Indore, as Original Application No.686/1998. After abolition of the Tribunal, it has been transferred to High Court. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 26.4.1997 (Annexure A-I). By the aforesaid order, 60% pension of the petitioner has been forfeited permanently. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Collector with effect from 30.6.1989. On 5.10.1988, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with regard to some irregularities committed by him, when he was working as Land Acquisition Officer, Sehore, from 19.10.1983 to 1985. Total five charges were levelled against the petitioner. First charge was related to acquisition of a land for dam. It is mentioned that the said land was not good for construction of a dam and another land can be acquired. Second charge was related to grant of compensation at a higher rate of the land to the farmers. Third charge was that he had granted 15% additional solatium on the compensation, and fourth charge was that he had granted compensation illegally with the trees attached to the land, and as per fifth charge, there was no provision for additional compensation. However, he had granted the said compensation. 4. The petitioner denied all the charges and demanded certain documents for submitting his reply. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his enquiry report on 19.8.1990. It is submitted by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner did not exercise his discretion properly and due to this, there was excess payment paid to the farmers as compensation and he found charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply and after the reply, the impugned order of forfeiture of 60% of pension of the petitioner has been passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner was posted as Land Acquisition Officer. He was performing a quasi-judicial work being a Land Acquisition Officer and there was no charge of illegal or improper motive or extraneous consideration against him. Hence, he cannot be held liable for the said misconduct. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has passed an award and if he has paid any excess compensation, award can always be challenged in a reference before the District Judge. Hence, he cannot be held liable for the said misconduct. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has passed an award and if he has paid any excess compensation, award can always be challenged in a reference before the District Judge. No such reference was made by the Government. Hence, imposition of punishment of forfeiture of pension is illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner and the charges were grave in nature and after considering all the facts, Cabinet has decided to forfeit 60% of the pension of the petitioner. 8. It is an admitted position that before forfeiture of 60% of the pension, sanction of the Cabinet was obtained. 9. It is also an admitted position with regard to choice of the site, Irrigation Department has selected the site and the Collector has approved it, which is evident from the enquiry proceedings. It was not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner to select the site. Hence, he could not be held liable for the first charge. With regard to other charges, it is amply clear that the petitioner was performing a quasi-judicial function being Land Acquisition Officer. There is no allegation that there was any improper motive or any extraneous consideration on the part of the petitioner with regard to performance of his duties. 10. All the charges are related with regard to negligence of the petitioner in performing the said duty or carelessness. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999 SCC (L & S) 1299 [Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India & others] has held as under: "A wrong interpretation of law cannot be a ground for misconduct. It is a different matter altogether if it is deliberate and actuated by mala fides. Negligence in quasi-judicial adjudication is not carelessness, inadvertence or omission but a culpable negligence." "When penalty is not levied, the assessee certainly benefits but it cannot be said that by not levying penalty, the officer has favoured assessee or shown undue favour to him. There has to be some basis for the disciplinary authority to reach such a conclusion even prima facie. Records in the present case do not show that the disciplinary authority had any information within its possession from where it could form an opinion that the appellant showed 'favour' to the assessee by not imposing penalty. There has to be some basis for the disciplinary authority to reach such a conclusion even prima facie. Records in the present case do not show that the disciplinary authority had any information within its possession from where it could form an opinion that the appellant showed 'favour' to the assessee by not imposing penalty. He may have exercised his jurisdiction wrongly but that wrong can be corrected in appeal. That cannot always form a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an officer while he is acting as a quasi-judicial authority. It must be kept in mind that being a quasi-judicial authority, he is always subject to judicial supervision in appeal. " "If every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the appellant. Misconduct, in sum and substance, is sought to be inferred in the• present case from the fact that the appellant committed an error of law. The charge-sheet, on the face of it, does not proceed on any legal premise and is thus liable to be quashed. To maintain a charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial authority, something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing quasi-judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein, the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication, whereunder quasi-judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of constant threat of disciplinary proceedings." 11. On the basis of the above provisions of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not liable for any misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet because he was performing a quasi-judicial work being a Land Acquisition Officer. It is an admitted position that there is no charge or finding of improper motive or extraneous consideration against the petitioner. 12. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, petition of the petitioner is allowed. It is an admitted position that there is no charge or finding of improper motive or extraneous consideration against the petitioner. 12. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.4.1997 (Annexure A-1) with regard to forfeiture of the 60% of the pension and gratuity of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to pay full pension to the petitioner and arrears of pension, which is due to him as per law. No order as to cost.