Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 838 (MP)

Santosh Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2013-07-19

Sujoy Paul

body2013
ORDER 1. Since the questions involved in these matters are identical, on the joint request of the parties, matters are heard together analogously and decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P. No.2390/2012. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet (Annexure P-1) dated Nil July, 2011. The main ground of challenge to the charge sheet is that petitioner cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for exercise of quasi judicial powers. It is contended by Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner passed the orders in various cases wherein he exercised his quasi judicial power in the capacity of Tahsildar. If the orders were erroneous, the same could have been challenged before the higher forum but passing of an erroneous order cannot be subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. He relied on (1992) 3 SCC 124 (Union of India and others v. A.N. Saxena) and (1993) 2 SCC 49 (Union of India and another v. R.K.Desai). 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana) . 4. In W.P. 3187/12 also the charge sheet dated 16.4.2012 is under challenge. In this case also the allegations against the petitioner are regarding his decisions taken in the capacity of Tahsildar which were set aside by the higher forum. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. If the charge sheet Annexure P-1 (in W.P.No.2390/12) is perused, it shows that specific allegations are made against the petitioner that he has given benefit to ineligible persons. It is further stated that the petitioner has not followed the procedure prescribed in the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Thus, the allegations of dereliction of duty and negligence etc. are made against the petitioner. 7. In W.P. No. 3187/12 the similar allegations are made against the petitioner. In addition, it is mentioned that the petitioner has passed illegal orders contrary to rules with a view to provide illegal benefits to the applicants of revenue matters. Thus, allegations of acting with ulterior motive are also alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of A.N.Saxena and R.K.Desai (supra). In addition, it is mentioned that the petitioner has passed illegal orders contrary to rules with a view to provide illegal benefits to the applicants of revenue matters. Thus, allegations of acting with ulterior motive are also alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of A.N.Saxena and R.K.Desai (supra). These judgments were again considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. K.K.Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56 . In para 28 the apex Court opined that disciplinary action can be taken in following cases, which reads as under:- “28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercise judicial or quasi judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases: (i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; (iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; (vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago “though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great”. 8. 8. A bare perusal of the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Dhawan (supra) makes it clear that employee can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings even for his reckless conduct in discharge of duty, acting in a negligent manner in violation of prescribed conditions for exercise of statutory powers. In addition, he can be proceeded against if he unduly favours a party. 9. If the present charge sheet is examined on the anvil of aforesaid test laid down by the Supreme Court, it will be crystal clear that those allegations of dereliction of duty, not acting in consonance with the prescribed procedure, negligence and ulterior motive are already made against the petitioner. 10. This is settled in law that correctness of charges cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. The apex Court in Satynarayana (supra) opined as under:- “It is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice. A writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final oder imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show cause notice or charge-sheet. Albeit, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a chargesheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal.” 11. In the light of aforesaid analysis, it is crystal clear that at this stage it cannot be said that charge sheet does not constitute misconduct. No interference can be made at this stage. The petitioner is free to defend himself in the enquiry in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. The ad-interim relief granted by this Court is vacated. No cost.