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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose (1990) Supp. 1 SCC 738 (2005) 6 SCC 636. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.