LexAMRESH SHRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 488 : 2025 INSC 417 Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10590 of 2024) 01 April 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Dispute arose as to whether the power exercised by Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing a Land Settlement Order- a quasi-judicial order u/s.57(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The questions for consideration were (i) whether the chargesheet issued to appellant by Respondent-State fell within the scope of observations carved out by this Court in K.K. Dhawan case; and (ii) Whether inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet (in this case 14 years) was in itself a ground for quashing the chargesheet issued to the appellant. Headnotes† Disciplinary proceedings – Against Revenue Officer – For wrongful quasi-judicial order – Disciplinary proceedings, if warranted – Inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of chargesheet – Effect of – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Judges Protection Act, 1985: Held: In K.K. Dhawan case, this Court carved out six situations where the government is not precluded from taking disciplinary actions for violation of the Code of Conduct; and further observed that mere technical violations or the fact that an order is wrong, if not falling under the said six enumerated instances, does not warrant disciplinary actions – The enumerated instances are however only a guide and not meant to be mandatorily adhere to without exception – In the present case, the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet fall under the category of a wrongful order, which does not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification – It * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 489 Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty – The power exercised by the Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him – As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case – However, in the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee – However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications – In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings. [Paras 15, 16, 17] Case Law Cited Union of India and others v. K.K. Dhawan [1993] 1 SCR 296 : (1993) 2 SCC 56; Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and Others [1999] Supp. 1 SCR 87 : (1999) 7 SCC 409; Krishna Prasad Verma through Lrs. v. State of Bihar and Others [2019] 12 SCR 861 : (2019) 10 SCC 640; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another (1990) Supp. 1 SCC 738; P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 474 : (2005) 6 SCC 636 – referred to. List of Acts Judges Protection Act, 1985; Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. List of Keywords Tehsildar; Quasi-judicial order; Land settlement; Chargesheet; Unexplained delay; Disciplinary action; Negligent acts; Undue favour; Malafides; Extraneous influence; Incorrect quasi-judicial orders. 490 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10590 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 in WA No. 212 of 2018 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Devadutt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Arjun Garg, Abhinav Shrivastava, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Ms. Sagun Shrivastava, Shivang Rawat, Ms. Amrita Kumari. Advs. for the Respondents: Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G., Sarad Kumar Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.