Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durg Singh Maurya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2026
1
WP-10749-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 7th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10749 of 2018
DURG SINGH MAURYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, by issuance of the writ order or direction the charge-sheet Annexure P/1 may kindly be directed to be set aside and the further proceedings as well as the letter of the Commissioner Annexure P/8 dated 5.7.2017 requesting for initiation of major punishment and the FIR Annexure P/7 for same set of facts may kindly be directed to be quashed.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 2
WP-10749-2018
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as a Revenue Inspector and thereafter promoted on the post of Naib Tahsildar and in the year 2013-2014, petitioner was working on the post of Naib Tahsildar, Mau and passed an order of mutation dated 18.12.2014 of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.1569 of village Jamdara, Patwari Halka No.74, District Bhind. The order passed by the petitioner under Section 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "Code") was appealable and revisable, however, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and report was obtained from the SDO and Collector and thereafter the SDO and Collector proposed for cancellation of enquiry against the petitioner. However, the Commissioner disagreed with the same and passed the order dated 30.05.2016 directing to hold the enquiry and accordingly charge-sheet dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure P/1) was issued against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed and Inquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report and petitioner submitted reply tot he enquiry report and further submitted that on the same allegation, FIR was also registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC, which is under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of enquiry proceedings, petitioner has been superannuated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 3 WP-10749-2018 on 31.07.2017 and thereafter on the basis of enquiry report, Commissioner sent the matter to the State Government for inflicting major punishment and thereafter punishment order dated 20.08.2020 was issued by which 25% pension of the petitioner has been withheld by the respondent and that has been challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No.9722/2022 and submitted that the petitioner has acted as a quasi judicial officer exercising power under the Code and thereafter he is entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and the same issue has already been decided by the coordinate Bench by judgment dated 04.05.2026 passed in W.P. No.189/2020 (Virendra Kumar Katare Vs. General Administration Department and others) and in the similar circumstances, on the basis that the petitioner has acted as a quasi judicial officer exercising power conferred under the Code, coordinate Bench has quashed charge-sheet in that case and submitted that the same benefit must be extended to the petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that act of the petitioner cannot be said to be a judicial function as the mutation of entry in the Land Record is an administration function and thus such exercising of administrative powers cannot be protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act and further submitted that writ petition does not maintainable against the charge-sheet as it does not give rise to any cause of action to the petitioner.
4. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 4 WP-10749-2018 while working as Naib Tahsildar, passed a mutation order dated 18.12.2014 under Section 110 of the Code in exercise of quasi- judicial powers. Although the said order was appealable and revisable under the Code, departmental enquiry was initiated against him and charge-sheet dated 25.01.2016 was issued despite recommendations of the SDO and Collector for closure of the enquiry. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings, and during pendency thereof, he superannuated on 31.07.2017. Thereafter, by order dated 20.08.2020, 25% of his pension was withheld on the basis of the enquiry report.
6. For the same allegations, FIR under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC has also been registered and is under investigation. Since the petitioner was acting as a quasi-judicial authority under the Code, he is entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 04.05.2026 passed in W.P. No.189/2020 (Virendra Kumar Katare Vs. General Administration Department and others), wherein in similar circumstances, Coordinate Bench quashed the charge-sheet.
7. The SDO, vide letter dated 22/23.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) has also requested the Collector not to initiate any enquiry against the petitioner. Relevant part thereof reads as under:-
यह सहही हहै ककि रराजसस्व अधधिकिरारही दराररा किकोई आददेश पराररत ककियरा जरातरा हहै तको उसकिदे वस्वरूद्ध ससंकहतरा किकी धिराररा 44 एस्वसं धिराररा 50 ममें अपपील एस्वसं धनिगररानिपी किकी शवक्तियरायाँ स्वररष्ठ नयरायरालय किको पराप्त हहैं। तथरा ममूल नयरायरालय सदे आददेश पराररत हकोनिदे ममें हह ई Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 5 WP-10749-2018 भमूल किको पररमरारजर्जित ककियरा जरा सकितरा हहै। परसंतह शरासनि सदे पराप्त भमूधम किदे गरामलदे ममें वबिनिरा सक्षम अधधिकिरारही किकी अनिहमधत किदे ककिए गए असंतरण किदे मरामलदे ममें वस्वभरागपीय किरायर्जिस्वराहही ककिए जरानिदे किरा किकोई पधतषदेधि निहहीसं हहै। मरानिनिपीय सस्वर्वोचच्च नयरायरालय किदे ससंलगनि आददेश (धसवस्वल अपपील किसं.1159/2015 स्वपीरदेनन्द्र किहमरार धससंह वस्वरूद्ध म०प०शरासनि एस्वसं अनय ममें पराररत) कदनिरासंकि 22.01.2015 किदे अनिहसरार अररर्द्ध ननन्यायनक आददेश पन्याररित करिनदे मम नदद ककोई ततदट हकोतती हहै तको सक्षम पन्याधर्द्धकन्यारिरी उसदे यनरिसत करि सकतन्या हहै। इस पकन्यारि कदे आददेश पन्याररित करिनदे वन्यालदे अधर्द्धकन्यारिरी कदे ववरूरर्द्ध ववभन्यागतीन कन्यानरवन्याहरी पन्यारिरंभ नहरीरं ककी जन्यानती चन्यादहए।'
8. The Collector, vide letter dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure P-4), has also requested the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Relevant part thereof reads as under :-
''नयरायरालय किरा आददेश हकोनिदे ममें हहई भमूल किको पररस्वधतर्जित ककियरा जरा सकितरा हहै परनतह शरासनि दराररा सहनिदे जरानिदे किदे मरामलदे ममें सक्षम अधधिकिरारही किकी अनिहमधत सदे ककियदे गयदे असंतरण किदे मरामलदे ममें वस्वभरागपीय किरायर्जिस्वराहही ककियदे जरानिदे किरा किकोई पधतबिसंधि निहहीसं हहै। अररर्द्ध ननन्यायनक आददेश पन्याररित करिनदे मम नदद (अपदठित) हकोतती हहै तको सक्षम पन्याधर्द्धकन्यारिरी उसदे यनरिसत करि सकतन्या हहै इस पकन्यारि कदे आददेश पन्याररित करिनदे (अपदठित) अधर्द्धकन्यारिरी कदे ववरूरर्द्ध ववभन्यागतीन कन्यानरवन्याहरी पन्यारिरंभ नहरीरं ककी जन्यानती चन्यादहए अत: तदनिहसरार अधभमत सरादर समपदेवषत हहै''
9. Charge framed against the petitioner vide charge-sheet 25.01.2015 (Annexure P-1) reads as under:-
आरिकोप कमन्यारंक-1 आपकिदे दराररा मधयपददेश भमू-रराजसस्व ससंकहतरा 1959 किकी धिराररा 165 ममें धनिकहत परास्वधिरानिको किदे असंतगर्जित वबिनिरा सक्षम अधधिकिरारही किकी Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 6 WP-10749-2018 अनिहमधत किदे वबिनिरा निरामरातसंरण आददेश पराररत ककियरा गयरा। आपकिरा उक्ति किकृतय म.प. धसवस्वल सदेस्वरा (आच्चरण) धनियम 1965 किदे धनियम 3 (1), (2), (3) किरा सपष्ट उललसंघनि हकोकिर दणण्डनिपीय हहै।
10. Upon analyzing the charge, it is evident that the petitioner has acted as a quasi judicial officer under the Code. Consequently, he is entitled to protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985 as established in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7916 (Premnarayan Vs. State of M.P.) and 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7358 (Kailash Bundela Vs. State of M.P.).
11. On a bare reading of the charge framed against the petitioner, it is apparent that the actions of the petitioner, which form the bedrock of the charge sheet, were performed strictly in his capacity as a quasi-
judicial officer under the Code. To appreciate this protection, the specific facts of the charges must be juxtaposed with the statutory duties of a Tehsildar.
12. The core issue relating to disciplinary action against an officer discharging statutory or quasi-judicial duties is no longer res-integra. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56: 1993 SCC (L&S) 325:
1993 SCC OnLine SC 59 at page 67 reads as under:-
"28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 7 WP-10749-2018 present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great".
13. The record indicates that the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Tehsildar. The process of mutation is a classic adjudicatory function of a Revenue Court.
14. Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 affords absolute protection to any person, who is empowered by law to give a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 8 WP-10749-2018 definitive judgment in any legal proceeding. Because the petitioner was presiding over formal revenue cases and adjudicating civil rights pertaining to land revenue and title mutation under the Code, his actions squarely fall within the protective ambit of the Act.
15. Consequently, even if the mutation order was erroneous or the auction procedure suffered from legal infirmities, such errors of judgment made during the lawful exercise of statutory powers cannot be categorized as administrative misconduct. This specific legal position, shielding Revenue Officers from disciplinary proceedings for quasi-judicial errors, has been conclusively affirmed by this Court in Premnarayan (supra) and Kailash Bundela (supra). Therefore, the charge is legally unsustainable on this ground alone.
16. Furthermore, the petitioner discharging quasi-judicial functions could not be issued a charge sheet for passing an alleged wrongful order without any allegation of the order being influenced by extraneous factors or gratification. In 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693 (Amresh Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"16. In the present care, we are of the considered view that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the charge-sheet fall under the category of a wrongful under which does not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification h appears that the order has been passed in good rank without any indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Care Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his capacity as a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM 9 WP-10749-2018 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 ax mentioned above, supports this view Consequently, the first question is answered in favor of the Appellant"
17. Thus, while this Court normally exercises restraint under Article 226 in matters of departmental enquiry, this is a glaring case where the charges are prima facie absurd, legally vague, delayed, and targeted at a quasi-judicial function without any specific imputation of malafide intent or gratification.
18. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned charge sheet dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure P/1) as well as letter dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure P-8) and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
19. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 5/11/2026 6:25:36 AM