The Supreme Court of India held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against quasi-judicial officers merely for passing incorrect orders unless there is evidence of malafide intent, corruption, or extraneous influence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized the need to safeguard judicial independence while ensuring accountability only in cases of proven misconduct.
Background of the Case
The case involved Amresh Shrivastava, a former Tehsildar in Madhya Pradesh, who had passed a land settlement order in 1997 under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order, which settled land in favor of private parties, followed due process—including issuing notices, obtaining a panchayat resolution, and reviewing the Patwari’s report. Since the order was never challenged, it attained finality.
However, in 2009, the Collector of Gwalior issued a show-cause notice alleging that the settlement was illegal and caused a loss to the state. A chargesheet followed in 2011, accusing Shrivastava of negligence and dishonesty.
Shrivastava challenged the chargesheet in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which shields judicial officers from legal action for acts performed in their official capacity.
Single Judge’s Ruling (2017): Quashed the chargesheet, citing unexplained delay (14 years) and lack of evidence of misconduct.
Division Bench’s Reversal (2019): Revived the chargesheet, relying on Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan (1993), which held that negligent quasi-judicial acts causing undue favor could warrant disciplinary action.
Read Also:- Senior Advocate Criticized by Supreme Court Again for False Assertions in Bail Petition
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, restoring the Single Judge’s decision. Key observations included:
"Mere wrong orders, without allegations of corruption, extraneous influence, or dishonesty, cannot justify disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer."
The Court referred to Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2019), which clarified:
"Wrong orders by judicial officers should not automatically lead to disciplinary action unless there are allegations of misconduct based on extraneous influences. The remedy lies in challenging the order legally, not punishing the officer."
Key Legal Principles Established
No Disciplinary Action for Legal Errors:
- Quasi-judicial officers must be free to decide cases without fear of reprisal for bona fide mistakes.
- Disciplinary action is warranted only in cases of corruption, malafide intent, or gross negligence.
Inordinate Delay Bars Proceedings:
- The Court noted that 14 years of unexplained delay made the proceedings unfair, citing:
- State of MP v. Bani Singh (1990): Disciplinary action after 12 years was quashed.
- P.V. Mahadevan v. TN Housing Board (2005): Undue delay causes mental distress and reputational harm.
Protection Under Judges Protection Act, 1985:
- Officers performing quasi-judicial functions are entitled to immunity unless proven misconduct exists
Read Also:- Supreme Court Affirms Bombay High Court's Ruling in Advocate Cheating Case
Final Order
- The chargesheet was quashed, and the Single Judge’s decision was restored.
- The Court clarified that disciplinary action must be based on proven misconduct, not mere legal errors.
Case Title: AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
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
