Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Be Initiated Against Quasi-Judicial Officer Merely On Ground Of Passing Wrong Order : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 1) quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a former Tehsildar, ruling that incorrect quasi-judicial orders alone, without allegations of malafides or extraneous influence, cannot justify disciplinary action.

The Court stated that when the order was passed in good faith (though incorrect), it would not warrant initiating disciplinary proceedings against the quasi-judicial officer unless the order was influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih heard the case where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant (when he was Tehsildar) for passing an alleged incorrect order after 14 years of passing an order.

Briefly put, in 1997, as Tehsildar, the Appellant passed a quasi-judicial order under Section 57(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, settling land in favour of some private parties after due process (notice, panchayat resolution, patwari report). The order attained finality as it was never challenged.

However, a show-cause notice was issued to him in 2009 and a chargesheet was issued in 2011, alleging an illegal settlement causing loss to the state.

Challenging the charge sheet, the Appellant approached the MP High Court seeking protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 for quasi-judicial acts. Also, he contended that the charge sheet does not mention any allegations of extraneous influence or corruption warranting the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an inordinate delay of 14 years.

The Single Bench quashed the chargesheet, citing unexplained delay. However, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge order, relying on Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan (1993), holding that negligent/quasi-judicial acts causing undue favour could warrant disciplinary action.

Following this, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's Division decision, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that mere "wrong orders" without allegations of corruption, extraneous influence, or dishonesty cannot justify disciplinary proceedings against the officer.

Referencing Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2019) 10 SCC 640, the Court observed that disciplinary action requires proof of misconduct, not just incorrect orders.

In the case of Krishna Prasad Verma, the Court clarified that “while wrong orders by judicial officers should not automatically lead to disciplinary action unless there are allegations of misconduct based on extraneous influences. The remedy under such circumstances would be available to the parties concerned to avail all the remedies available under law. It was further reiterated that unless there are clear cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect.”

Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed:

“In the present case, we are of the considered view that 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 appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. 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. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the first question is answered in favor of the Appellant.”

Given the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order restoring the order passed by the Single Bench.

Case Title: AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Devadutt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR