The Madhya Pradesh High Court while quashing departmental proceedings initiated against an Additional Collector has ruled that a quasi-judicial officer is protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 for acts done in good-faith.

The Court was considering a writ-petition seeking quashing of order rejecting the request of petitioner for not initiating departmental enquiry and also for quashing of charge sheet.

The single-bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, "....the petitioner is also entitled to get protection under the Act of 1985 because he was a judicial officer at the time of deciding the applications under Section 165 (6) & (7) of the Code of 1959, therefore, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him is not sustainable and the same deserves to be set aside."

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay K. Agrawal and Advocate Amreshwar Pathak while the respondent was represented by Government Advocate Girish Kekre.

The petitioner, at the time of discharging his duties as Additional Collector granted permission exercising the power provided under Sections 165(6) and 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and it was alleged that the said permission was given by the petitioner by not following the due procedure and thereby causing loss to the Government exchequer and it was also alleged that he was not competent to grant such permission, and as such, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner containing as many as 13 charges. Subsequently, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner which was challenged by him by filing this petition but no interim order was also granted to him and the departmental proceeding is still going on.

The Senior Counsel for the petitioner assailed the action of the respondents mainly on the ground that the charge sheet issued was illegal for the reason that the petitioner is protected under the provisions of The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and submitted that State Government has also issued a circular back in 2021 whereby the revenue officers were considered to be a ‘Judge’ as per Section (2) of the Act of 1985 and as such, the proceeding which is said to be illegal and initiated by the petitioner granting permission under Section 165 cannot be subjected to a disciplinary proceeding.

He also submitted that the enquiry can be initiated only when there is any oblique motive of the authority in granting permission or exercising power under Section 165 of the Code of 1959 but according to him in this case, EOW has also conducted an enquiry and submitted its report clarifying that there was no oblique motive available with the petitioner while performing the duties as Additional Collector and granting permission under Section 165 of the Code of 1959.

It was also clarified that no financial loss has been caused to the Government Exchequer due to such action of the petitioner and it was submitted that there was no occasion for issuing any charge sheet or subjecting the petitioner to disciplinary proceeding.

The Court while deciding on the legal issue as to whether petitioner is entitled to get any protection treating him to be a Judge while dealing proceeding for granting permission under Section 165 (6) and (7) of Code of 1959 as per the Judges Protection Act looked into the definition of ‘Judge’ provided under the Act.

It noted that the same includes not only the Judge but also the officers acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function as a quasi-judicial officer.

"The Revenue Officers have also been considered to be a Judge at the time of performing the judicial proceeding and an order in this regard has been issued by the Revenue Department on 25.03.2021. The same is also available on record as Annexure P/10, in which quoting the definition of ‘Judge’ provided under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, the State Government has also granted protection...," the court observed.

The Court asserted that the Revenue Department's order makes it clear that the proceeding deciding the applications under Section 165 of the Code of 1959 is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

The Court highlighted its recent ruling in Premnarayan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others wherein it relied upon its other several decisions and observed inter-alia that the officers, who are discharging the duties as a quasi-judicial authorities are protected under the umbrella of acts done in good faith.

"Thus, the Additional Collector has been considered to be judicial officer and held entitled to get protection as has been provided under the Act of 1985 and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when EOW and Lokayukt has already enquired the matter and has given specific opinion that the alleged act of petitioner granting permission under the Code of 1959 while deciding applications under Section 165(6) & (7) being an Additional Collector was without any oblique motive or without getting any personal profit or causing no financial loss to the Government Exchequer, thus, initiating disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is apparently illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the protection provided to him. In the existing circumstances, if existing disciplinary proceeding is allowed to continue when everything has already been enquired about and nothing was found against the petitioner then keeping the said disciplinary proceeding pending depriving him from consideration for promotion to the post of IAS cadre, is nothing but an arbitrary and malicious exercise of powers just to keep the petitioner away from the said consideration. In my opinion, if such an exercise is kept alive that would also be an act to shaken the confidence of the authority performing quasi judicial function," the court observed.

It added that the court also have to consider the aspect that the same empowerment was assailed in number of cases and High Court has already proved and given stamp of approval to the orders passed by the present petitioner granting permission under Section 165 (6) & (7) of the Code of 1959 even though he is subjected to a disciplinary proceeding.

The Court was of the view that there is some flaw in exercise of respondents-authorities and the same is not permissible.

"If a Judge while performing his duties acted beyond the scope of that function then I can understand that the action can be taken but here in this case as the discussion made hereinabove when there was nothing wrong committed by the petitioner and he has not acted beyond the scope of quasi-judicial proceeding for which he was empowered, even then, ignoring the said protection and initiating disciplinary proceeding against the said officer, cannot be said to be proper and that cannot be allowed to continue because it is otherwise contrary to law," the court observed.

"If the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that in every case a Judge is subjected to a criminal and civil proceeding as per sub-section (2) of Section 3 then the said equation and analogy would create absurdity and make sub-section (1) of Section (3) of Act of 1985 otiose and the impact of the said clause would become redundant...," the court added.

The petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Kailash Bundela vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Appearances:

Petitioner-Senior Advocate Sanjay K. Agrawal and Advocate Amreshwar Pathak

Respondent-Government Advocate Girish Kekre.

Click here to read/ download the judgement:



Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Sanjay DwivediHigh Court JudgesDepartmental ProceedingJudicial Officer

Sheetal Joon