Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dandraua Sarkar Public Trust Through on 19 January, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 MCC-2445-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MCC No. 2445 of 2025
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs DANDRAUA SARKAR PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH )
Dated : 19-01-2026
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Government Advocate with Shri K.L.Meena,
Collector Bhind, who is present in person.
The summary of the controversy involved at this stage is that a
statement was made by the then Collector, Bhind, that action is under
contemplation against Tahsildar for making an entry in the revenue record
which, according to the State, is wrong. Thereafter, the matter went in
hibernation. When the case was taken up, Shri K.L. Meena appeared before
this Court on 10/11/2025 and made a statement that the then District
Magistrate, Bhind, by his letter dated 11/04/2025, forwarded a
recommendation to the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, for
taking action against the Tahsildar. It was further stated that since the District
Magistrate/Collector is not the disciplinary Authority, therefore, the matter
was forwarded to the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, and a
categorical statement was made by Shri K.LMeena that the matter is still
pending before Commissioner, Chambal Divison, Morena and no decision
has been taken by him so far. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Chambal
Division, Morena, was directed to join the Court proceedings through video
conferencing on 11/11/2025. On 11/11/2025, Shri Lokesh Kumar Jangid,
Collector, Morena, who was holding the current charge of Divisional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, appeared and submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 20-01-2026
14:50:18
2 MCC-2445-2025
although a proposal was received from the Office of Collector, Bhind on
11/4/2025 for taking action against Tahsildar, but twice it was sent back back
to Collector, Bhind to resubmit the proposal along with memo of charges and
other relevant documents. Accordingly, by order dated 17/11/2025 the
following order was passed:-
" Shri Kirodi Lal Meena, Collector, Bhind has joined the Court proceedings
through video conferencing. He had filed his affidavit pointing out that the matter
was forwarded to Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena on 11/04/2025, and it
is pending in the said office.
However, on 11/11/2025, Shri Lokesh Kumar Jangid, Collector, Morena who has
holding the additional charge of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena had
made a specific submission that after 11/04/2025, the matter was sent back twice to
Collector, Bhind to submit all the documents with proposed charges.
That fact was deliberately suppressed by Shri Meena in his affidavit dated
10/11/2025, therefore, affidavit, which was filed by Shri Meena on 10/11/2025 vide
document No.7224/2025 is false even to his knowledge. Before deciding as to
whether contempt notice be issued to Shri Meena for filing false affidavit or not, this
Court would like to seek response from Chief Secretary, State of M.P. as well as
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena to the effect as to whether they are happy
with their subordinate officers who have no hesitation in scandalizing the office of
seniors.
It is made clear that in case if Chief Secretary, State of M.P. and Commissioner,
Chambal Division, Morena expresses their happiness with the conduct of Shri
Meena, then this Court may not go for drawing proceedings for contempt of Court.
So far as the explanation given by Shri Navneet Sharma, SDM, Mehgaon, District
Bhind is concerned, the same is not satisfactory.
Accordingly, Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena is directed to decide as to
whether any disciplinary action is required against Shri Navneet Sharma, SDM,
Mehgaon, District Bhind or not?
Let the response be filed in that regard by Commissioner, Chambal Division,
Morena by next date of hearing.
The personal presence of Shri Kirodi Lal Meena, Collector, Bhind is hereby
exempted.
It is further submitted by Shri Kushwah that Shri R.N. Khare the then Tahsildar
has been placed under suspension by order dated 16/11/2025 passed by G.A.D
Department and charge-sheet pertaining to departmental enquiry shall be concluded
within a period of two months.
List on 10/12/2025"
2. Thus, the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, was directed
to look into the matter at his own level and it was specifically mentioned that
"It is made clear that in case if Chief Secretary, State of M.P. and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 20-01-2026
14:50:18
3 MCC-2445-2025
Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena expresses their happiness with the
conduct of Shri Meena, then this Court may not go for drawing proceedings
for contempt proceedings". Thereafter, the Chief Secretary conducted an
inquiry and submitted his enquiry report and the explanation given by Shri
Meena was not accepted by the Chief Secretary and it was observed as
under:-
"c) Shri Meena was heard in person on 6.12.2025. He reiterated
the same facts he had mentioned in his reply and assured that he
would exercise greater care and diligence while filing affidavits in
future. He was counselled that he should have consulted the
Commissioner's office and if necessary the Revenue Department,
ascertained the factual status before finalizing the affidavit or
making oral submissions and attempted to provide a complete
picture regarding the questions posed by the Court.";
and, accordingly, an administrative warning was issued to him.
Thus, even the Chief Secretary had come to a conclusion that Shri
Meena had filed an affidavit without consulting the Commissioner's office
and if necessary the Revenue Department and did not try to ascertain the
factual status before filing the affidavit or making oral submissions before
this Court.
3. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 10/12/2025 found that the
State Government is also trying to protect its erring officers, specifically
when a question with regard to the Government properties is involved and on
one hand the State Government is propagating that it is very serious towards
protecting its Government lands, but on the other hand is not ready to take
any action against its erring officers who are very casual in the matters
relating to Government property. It is not out of place to mention here that it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 20-01-2026
14:50:18
4 MCC-2445-2025
was the case of the State Government itself that one of its Officers i.e. the
then Tahsildar, had made fraudulent entry in the revenue records thereby
transferring the Government land to the respondent.
4. Thus, in spite of the conclusion drawn by the State about the fraudulent entry made by one of its Officers and in spite of the fact that the then Collector had given an undertaking that an action shall be taken against the erring Officer, Shri K.L. Meena was still out and out to make a false statement before this Court with regard to the steps taken by the office of Collector, Bhind.
5. Accordingly, by order dated 10/12/2025 and specifically in view of the findings given by the Chief Secretary, this Court thought it appropriate to issue notice of contempt to Shri K.L. Meena.
6. It is surprising that the order to issue contempt notice was against Shri K.L. Meena, Collector, Bhind, but the State Government felt aggrieved by that. What was the reason for the State for feeling aggrieved by a contempt notice issued to one of its functionaries could not be explained by Shri Kushwaha, but that is not a question which is to be adjudicated by this Court while deciding this matter. However, the filing of appeal by the State against an order of issuing notice of contempt to Shri Meena is being referred in order to find out what was the intention of the Chief Secretary behind awarding only an administrative warning to Shri Meena instead of taking serious action. However, thereafter Shri K.L. Meena also filed Writ Appeal No. 163/2026 and the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:185 MCC-2445-2025 "11. This is the case having chequered history. Litigation lacked promptitude by officers of State Government despite valuable Govt. land is involved, therefore, compelled by circumstances, learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dt.10.12.2025.
However, a bit course of correction appears to be prime requisite because in penultimate paragraph of impugned order, learned Single Judge found Collector Bhind - K.L.Meena guilty of not maintaining the standard as required in official submissions to the High Court. Post appearance for contempt proceedings would affect the prospects of appellant because said observation has the trappings of View Formation.
12. Therefore, initiation of contempt proceeding coupled with formation of view (even prima facie), may affect the proceeding of contempt. Besides that, Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant raised the issue regarding scope of MCC, that is also required to be addressed if proceedings were to continue. Sufficiency of cause in application for restoration is to be seen. Another question cropped up is regarding sufficiency/insufficiency of action taken by Chief Secretary qua appellant. Since learned Single Judge already posed certain questions before the Govt. Advocate including status of such administrative warning, therefore, those questions deserve to be addressed first.
13. Another aspect deserves consideration is the unconditional apology tried to be tendered by the appellant. If appellant tenders unconditional apology regarding alleged communication gap/inadvertence, then its impact thereon is to be seen. Circumstances under which this situation arose deserve dissection so that it may not occur in future. All these issues may be addressed for consideration before learned Single Judge, if advised so or if addressed so.
14. Therefore, in cumulative analysis while maintaining order dt.10.12.2025, only last paragraph, so far as initiation of contempt proceeding against the appellant is concerned, stands deleted. Appellant is relegated back in the proceeding to make submissions as per law showing his innocence, if any, and if required, to show the exact nature of Administrative Warning. Appellant to appear before the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2026 and take directions for further course of appearance."
Accordingly, the matter has once again come back before this Court. In paragraph 12, a contention was also raised by the Advocate General with regard to the issue regarding scope of M.C.C. and therefore the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the scope of M.C.C. is also required to be addressed if proceedings were to continue.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:186 MCC-2445-2025
7. A false affidavit was filed by Shri Meena in M.C.C. This Court did not punish Shri Meena in the M.C.C.. By order dated 10/12/2025, a notice was issued to Shri Meena to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him for making false statement before this Court and the Office was directed to register separate proceedings. Thus, this Court never intended to punish Shri Meena in the present M.C.C. and had specifically directed the Office to register a separate case.
8. So far as the apprehension of the State or Shri Meena that this Court has already made up its mind is concerned, the same is also misconceived. In order to issue a contempt notice, like Section 340 of Cr.P.C./379 of BNSS, a Court is required to make a prima facie opinion.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575 has held as under :-
"49. There are two preconditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC:
(i) materials produced before the court must make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 CrPC, and
(ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.
50. Observing that the court has to be satisfied as to the prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, this Court in Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel held as under: (SCC pp. 117- 18, paras 6-8) "6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 7 MCC-2445-2025 still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India.) The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
7. In the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 CrPC has been committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course. (See Pritish v. State of Maharashtra.)"
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 1 SCC 253 has held as under:-
"16. Be it noted that the court at the stage envisaged in Section 340 of the Code is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the Magistrate. At that stage the court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice. In M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019] a Constitution Bench of this Court cautioned that no expression on the guilt or innocence of the persons should be made by the court while passing an order under Section 340 of the Code. An exercise of the court at that stage is not for finding whether any offence was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confined to see whether the court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18
8 MCC-2445-2025
11. Thus, it has been specifically held that for forming an opinion as to whether any proceeding under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. should be undertaken or not, a separate inquiry is not required and the prima facie opinion formed by the Court is merely an opinion to decide as to whether the proceeding should be initiated or not. This Court cannot issue a contempt notice to anybody without forming a prima facie opinion as to whether a false statement is made or not. Coming to a prima facie opinion and holding a person guilty are two different aspects. If this Court before issuing a contempt notice has deliberated upon the fact as to whether Shri K.L. Meena has prima facie committed a contempt of Court or not, then that does not mean that a finding of guilt was recorded and therefore it is wrong to submit that since a prima facie opinion was formed to decide as to whether a contempt notice should be issued or not, this Court has already made up its mind to hold the contemnor guilty.
12. Another question which was raised by the Advocate General before the Division Bench was with regard to the sufficiency/insufficiency of action taken by Chief Secretary qua appellant. Accordingly, this Court had already posed certain questions before the Government Advocate including status of such administrative warning and thus the Division Bench of this Court held that these questions deserve to be addressed first.
13. Under these circumstances, before proceeding further, this Court would like to consider the question of sufficiency/ insufficiency of administrative warning given by the Chief Secretary to Shri K.L. Meena while holding him guilty of making a casual and negligent statement before Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 9 MCC-2445-2025 this Court.
14. Before considering the said aspect, this Court would like to clarify that while exercising power under this M.C.C., this Court is not hearing on the question of sufficiency/insufficiency. It is a matter of service jurisprudence which has to be dealt with in a different forum and therefore whether the punishment awarded by the Chief Secretary was sufficient or not cannot be the subject matter of this M.C.C. in stricto senso. However, incidentally, that is also an important aspect to consider as to whether the State Government is serious in protecting the Government lands or not.
15. The Chief Secretary must realize that neither the State Government nor the Chief Secretary is the owner of the Government properties. The properties might be known as Government properties, but they are public properties belonging to each and every citizen/resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh is merely a trustee who is there to take care of the aforesaid lands. If the Chief Secretary has decided to treat himself as the owner of the property, then it is an unfortunate aspect which must be corrected by the Chief Secretary. A Trustee is responsible to protect the property of the principal and cannot dispose it of as per his own wishes. A Trustee is the legal owner of Trust and has to act for the benefit of beneficiary.
16. As already pointed out by this Court, on one hand the State Government is propagating by getting it published in the newspaper at least at Gwalior that the State Government is very serious towards the misadventerous acts of private persons in usurping the Government land and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 10 MCC-2445-2025 according to the newspaper report, the Collector, Gwalior had issued a circular to all the Government Advocates appearing in the trial Courts to give periodical report about the stage of the cases in which the Government land is involved.
17. Accordingly, Shri S.S. Kushwaha was directed to submit as to whether grabbing of the State property is a casual act requiring no serious action by the Revenue Authorities to protect the same or the State property has to be protected at any cost. It is submitted by Shri S.S. Kushwaha that no revenue officer or no officer of the State Government can make any attempt to facilitate any person to grab the property of the State Government and it is the duty of all the Authorities including the Chief Secretary to protect the State property at any cost.
18. In the present case, the then Collector by filing a false affidavit before this Court had created an illusionary situation thereby giving an impression to the mind of the Court that the State Authorities are serious towards the misadventerous act of the then Tehsildar and are going to take serious action against him and then kept the matter in hibernation. It is not out of place to mention here that no action was taken against the then Tahsildar before any intervention was made by this Court. Only when this Court took a serious note of the misadventerous act of the then Collector in filing a false affidavit, thereby giving an illusionary impression to the mind of the Court that the State authorities are serious and taking action against the erring officers, the State Government came into action and that too when Shri K.L. Meena had successfully made a false statement before this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 11 MCC-2445-2025 that the office of Collector is not responsible for delay in action against the then Tehsildar but the office of Commissioner Chambal Division, Morena is responsible.
19. It is submitted by Shri Kushwaha that by order dated 16/11/2025, the then Tehsildar who at present was holding the post of Deputy Collector has been placed under suspension and a departmental charge sheet has been issued and the departmental inquiry is under progress.
20. This Court has failed to understand as to why this action was taken only when this Court took serious note of the inaction on the part of the State Authorities, specifically the conduct of Shri K.L. Meena in making false statement before this Court. What was expected from the State right from the very beginning was kept in hibernation deliberately and most probably the intention of the State was to protect the erring officer.
21. Be that whatever it may be.
22. At the cost of repetition, it is once again held that since neither the State Government nor the Chief Secretary is the owner of the State property and they are merely the trustees who are under obligation to protect the State property by exercising their power, therefore, nothing more is required to be written. If the Chief Secretary is able to understand the spirit of this sentence, then it would be good, otherwise, it is his prerogative to act in accordance with his own whims and fancies.
23. So far as the effect of administrative warning is concerned, the State has filed a circular issued under the executive instructions of Government of India dated 03/04/1981 which reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:1812 MCC-2445-2025 (II) PROCEDURE TO ISSUE A WARNING/DISPLEASURE/REPRIMAND
1. Procedure to issue a warning/displeasure/reprimand. I am directed to invite a reference to Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. 7/4/59-AIS(II), dated the 20th March, 1959 and letter No. 7/5/60-AIS(III), dated the 4th May, 1960, the contents of which have been reproduced as Government of India decisions 3 and 4 under Rule 6 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, at pages 122-23 of the All India Services Manual 4th Edition, Part I, and to say that the matter has been further considered and the following clarifications are given:-
(i) It has been stated in the Ministry of Home Affairs' letter No. 7/5/60-AIS(II), dated 4th May, 1960 that if it is decided, on the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings not to impose any of the prescribed punishments but to administer a warning or reprimand, mention of it should be made in the Confidential Roll. The Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Nadhan Singh vs the Union of India expressed the view that warning kept in the C.R. dossier has all the attributes of 'Censure' which is a formal punishment and which can only be awarded by the competent authority after following the procedure prescribed in the relevant disciplinary Rules. It has, therefore, been decided that where it is considered, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, that some blame attached to the officer concerned which necessitates cognizance of such fact, the disciplinary authority should award one of the recognized statutory penalties. If the intention of the disciplinary authority is not to award 'Censure', then no recordable warning or reprimand should be awarded.
(ii) In the Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. 7/4/59-AIS(II) of 20th March, 1959, it is stated that there may be occasions when a superior officer may find it necessary to criticize adversely the work of an officer working under him, and he may feel that while the matter is not serious enough to justify the imposition of a formal punishment, it calls for some informal action such as communication of a written warning, admonition or reprimand. It has now been decided that where such a warning/displeasure/ reprimand is issued, it should be placed in the personal file of the officer concerned. At the end of the year (or period of report), the reporting authority while writing the confidential report of the officer, may decide not to make a reference in the confidential report to the warning/displeasure/reprimand, if in the opinion of that authority, the performance of the officer reported upon after the issue of the warming or displeasure or reprimand, as the case may be, has improved and has been found satisfactory.
If, however, the reporting authority comes to the conclusion that despite the warning/displeasure/reprimand, the officer has not improved, it may make appropriate mention of such Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 13 MCC-2445-2025 warning/displeasure/reprimand, as the case may be, in the relevant column in Part-ll of the ACR from prescribed under the All India Services (Confidential Roll) Rules, and in that case a copy of the warning/displeasure reprimand referred to in the confidential report should be placed in the ACR dossier as an annexure to the confidential report for the relevant period. The adverse remarks should also be conveyed to the officer and his representation, if any, against the same disposed off in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules.
2 It is requested that these instructions may be brought to the notice of the members of All India Services functioning under the State Government."
24. According to Shri Kushwaha - "there may be occasions when a superior officer may find it necessary to criticize adversely the work of an officer working under him and he may feel that while the matter is not serious enough to justify the imposition of a formal punishment, it calls for some informal action such as communication of a written warning, admonition or reprimand". It is further submitted that now it has been decided that where such a warning/displeasure/reprimand is issued, it should be placed in the personal file of the officer concerned and at the end of the year or period of report, the reporting officer while writing the confidential report of the officer may decide not to make a reference in the confidential report to the warning/ displeasure/reprimand, if in the opinion of that officer, the performance of the officer reported upon after the issue of warning or displeasure or reprimand, as the case may be, has improved and has been found satisfactory.
25. It is fairly conceded by Shri S.S. Kushwaha that there is nothing on record to suggest that the order of Chief Secretary by which the administrative warning was issued to Shri K.L. Meena has been placed in his Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 14 MCC-2445-2025 personal record (service book).
Be that whatever may be. If that has not been done, then it is a glaring example where the Chief Secretary was out and out to protect his subordinate for no good reason. However, Shri Kushwaha was granted some time to seek telephonic instructions from the Chief Secretary in this behalf.
26. So far as the contention of the State Government that at the end of the year, the officer will verify as to whether the conduct of the officer against whom a warning has been issued has improved his working or not, and if it is found that the officer has improved himself, then such warning may not be taken into consideration is concerned, Shri Kushwaha was directed to explain as to whether the conduct of making false statement before the High Court or committing contempt of High Court will be covered by the aforesaid circular or not? However, Shri Kushwaha did not respond.
27. When a specific question was put to Shri Kushwaha whether the circular would include the act of an officer in making false statements before the Court, even in respect of the issue which has a very serious impact on the Government property, then no answer was given by Shri Kushwaha.
28. Although this circular has been placed on record by the State, but since Shri Kushwaha has not given any answer to the query raised by this Court, therefore, by way of abundant caution, a similar question was put to Shri Meena and except submitting that he requires some time to examine that aspect, he did not answer the query as to whether the act of making false statement before the Court thereby committing contempt of Court would be covered by the circular dated 3/4/1981 or not. Therefore, now the ball has Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 15 MCC-2445-2025 been thrown in this Court to adjudicate as to whether the circular dated 3/4/1981 relied upon by the State would cover the cases of making false statement before any Court of law or not.
29. So far as the issuance of warning in a case where the superior officer is of view that the matter is "not serious enough to justify the imposition of a formal punishment" is concerned, then as per the circular a warning can be issued, which has to be kept in the personal file of the delinquent officer with authority to the officer writing ACR to consider the same in the light of the subsequent conduct of the officer.
30. Therefore, now two questions are to be decided as to whether -
(i) whether making of a false statement before a Court is not serious enough to justify the imposition of a formal punishment ?, and
(ii) whether the circular would apply only to the day-to-day working of a delinquent officer or even to the cases where a false statement was made by him before the Court ?.
3 1 . If the State Government is of the view that making a false statement before the Court is a matter not serious enough to justify imposition of formal punishment, then it shows that the State Government has no respect for anybody and the Chief Secretary may be of the view that a person should not speak a lie before him but he can speak a lie before any constitutional Authority, specifically when the Government property is involved. It is for the Chief Secretary to introspect his conduct and his impression about the status of his post, but if any person is allowed to make a false statement before the Court, then it would create a very precarious Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 16 MCC-2445-2025 condition where the law and order situation would get worsened thereby affecting the rights of the innocent citizens of the country. Therefore, the act of making a false statement before the Court cannot be treated as an act not serious enough to justify the imposition of formal punishment.
32. Furthermore, if the impression of the Chief Secretary is that even the act of making false statement before the Court would be covered by the circular, then the said impression cannot be appreciated and upheld. How an Authority can say that since the delinquent officer had not committed the contempt of Court after the alleged incident therefore he has improved his conduct ? A single incident of contempt of Court is sufficient enough to impose a formal punishment.
33. Therefore, it is held that the circular dated 3/4/1981 relied upon by the Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh has no relevance and application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
34. This Court was conscious of the fact that it should not take a harsh step of issuing contempt notice to an IAS officer provided the Chief Secretary is ready to correct his house. Unfortunately, even after coming to a conclusion that Shri K.L. Meena was guilty of making a rash, negligent and casual statement before this Court, the Chief Secretary thought it proper that it is not an act which can be said to be serious enough to justify the imposition of a formal punishment. The purpose of giving an opportunity to the Chief Secretary was to correct his house as well as that he must know that what is going on in his State and he must take serious actions at least in those cases where the Government property is involved, but unfortunately, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 17 MCC-2445-2025 he has miserably failed in that aspect.
35. Be that whatever it may be.
36. In this case, we are not considering the conduct of the Chief Secretary and therefore the sufficiency or insufficiency of punishment is not the subject matter of this M.C.C. but the aforesaid aspect has been dealt with for the reason that in paragraph 12 of its order, the Division Bench of this Court has also left this aspect open to be decided by this Court. This Court would only like to say that when the Chief Secretary of the State is not ready to correct his officers, then this Court is also not ready to accept false statements on behalf of any Government official whatever post he may be holding.
37. Another aspect which has been kept open by the Division Bench is with regard to unconditional apology tried to be tendered by Shri K.L.Meena.
38. It is submitted by Shri Meena that today he has filed an unconditional apology for making incorrect statement before this Court and submitted that he had joined at Bhind on 03/10/2025 and at the time of filing affidavit, he was not briefed properly by the OIC due to which complete facts could not be presented before this Court. Thus, it is clear that Shri Meena has tried to shift the burden from his shoulders to SDM/OIC who had improperly briefed him. Now it is submitted by Shri K.L. Meena that a departmental charge sheet has been issued to Shri Navneet Sharma, SDM (Revenue), Mehgaon, District Bhind, for not apprising the Collector, Bhind, completely and accordingly a departmental inquiry has been initiated by order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 18 MCC-2445-2025 06/01/2026 passed by Suresh Kumar, Ayukta, Chambal Division, Morena.
39. On 10/11/2025, Shri Navneet Sharma was also directed to join the court proceedings through Video Conferencing and accordingly on 11/11/2025 the following stand was taken by Shri Navneet Sharma:
"When a specific question was put to SDM, Mehgaoan as to why he sat over the letter dated 12.6.2024 written by District Magistrate, Bhind and took nine months to submit his report on 21.3.2025, it was submitted by SDM, Mehgaon that he had already sent a report to the District Magistrate, Bhind and even after going through the said report, according to which, Shri R.N.Khare, the then Tehsildar was found responsible for making fraudulent entry, the matter was once again sent back by DM, Bhind and under an impression that no further communication is required from his end, he sat over the matter and he accepted his mistake.
Considered the submissions made by SDM, Mehgaon. Undisputedly, SDM, Mehgaon sat over the matter for nine months and gave his second report on 21.3. 2025 as a result the matter went in suspended animation for a period of nine moths. Before making any observations with regard to the bonafides of SDM, Mehgaon, this Court thinks it appropriate to give an opportunity to him to file his written response, if he so desires."
Accordingly, Shri Navneet Sharma was granted time to file his written submissions.
40. Shri Navneet Sharma has filed his reply and has taken a specific stand that an inquiry report was already submitted by him to the District Magistrate, Bhind, about the responsibility of the then Tahsildar, but again, the District Magistrate sent the matter back, therefore, under an impression that as he has already submitted his inquiry report, he was not required to respond to the letter issued by the District Magistrate.
41. Thus, it is clear that the District Magistrate was all the time trying to kill the valuable time of the State by throwing the papers from one table to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 19 MCC-2445-2025 the other and it appears that an attempt was also made by the District Magistrate, Bhind, to obtain a contrary report from Shri Navneet Sharma from what he had already communicated on an earlier occasion.
42. Be that whatever it may be.
43. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the conduct of Shri K.L. Meena in blindly acting upon the instructions given by Shri Navneet Sharma was expected from him as a senior and responsible officer of the State or not ?
44. It is the submission of Shri K.L. Meena that he had acted in bonafide belief and did not verify from the office of the Commissioner and he also did not verify from the record. He also submitted that since he had joined only on 03/10/2025, therefore this mistake has occurred. Accordingly, Shri Meena was directed to explain that how much time is required for a Collector to understand the affairs of the district or to look into a particular file. No reply was given by Shri K.L. Meena. Thus, it is clear that Shri K.L. Meena is also of the view that whatever the date of his joining may be, still he was expected to make a responsible statement before the Court after going through the entire record. This observation by this Court is also fortified by the definition of good faith as given in Section 2(11) of BNS which reads as under:-
"2(11) "good faith".--Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention;"
45. Accordingly, Shri Meena was directed to inform this Court as to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 20 MCC-2445-2025 whether he had taken any due care and attention before making any statement before this Court or not? He fairly conceded that he blindly relied on the instructions which were given by the OIC.
46. The aforesaid act of Shri Meena has also been taken note of by the Chief Secretary and he has specifically held that before making any casual statement before the High Court, Shri Meena should have consulted the Commissioner's Office or the Revenue Department, if required.
47. Therefore, in view of the findings given by the Chief Secretary, nothing more is required to be decided by this Court on this aspect except that in the light of the report given by the Chief Secretary as well as in light of Section 2(11) of BNS, it was expected from Shri K.L. Meena that he should have verified the facts from all the necessary departments before making any casual statement before this Court which was ultimately found not only false but it was a direct allegation against his superior officers.
48. Be that whatever it may be.
49. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court should accept the unconditional apology submitted by Shri K.L. Meena or not?
50. This Court has already come to a conclusion that the act of Shri Meena was casual, negligent and contemptuous, performed without any due care and attention as it was expected as per the definition of Section 2(11) of BNS and as also held by the Chief Secretary in his inquiry report.
51. It is submitted by Shri S.S. Kushwaha that although this Court has given a finding that the act of Shri K.L. Meena was not bonafide and it was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 21 MCC-2445-2025 contrary to the law of the land, still it is submitted that it was not a deliberate attempt on the part of Shri K.L. Meena.
52. This Court has failed to understand the act of the State Government or Shri K.L. Meena sticking to a ground which could not be explained by them in spite of a long opportunity of hearing given by this Court.
53. This Court is conscious of the fact that before deciding as to whether any contempt notice should be issued or not, it should not dive deep into the allegations so as to give a false impression in the mind of the litigant that this Court has already made up its mind, but this Court is also bound by the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid aspects have been considered in detail.
54. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court should issue a contempt notice or not?
55. It was vehemently submitted by Shri S.S. Kushwaha that Shri Meena will be more vigilant in future and will not take the Court proceedings in a light manner. Therefore, a specific question was put to Shri K.L. Meena as well as to Shri S.S. Kushwaha as to why a copy of this order should not be kept in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena ?
56. Shri S.S. Kushwaha submitted that it is true that the order of administrative warning was not kept in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena, but yesterday when the circular was looked into by the Chief Secretary, then the order of warning has been kept in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena yesterday only (i.e. 18/1/2026, Sunday).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:1822 MCC-2445-2025
57. Considered the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the State.
58. It is really unfortunate that although it is the primary duty of the State Government to take care of the Government property, but only the Courts are taking it seriously and not the State Authorities. Although the Chief Secretary has taken shelter of the circular dated 3/4/1981, but he did not try to comply with the same and did not put the order of warning in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena unless and until the writ appeal filed by the State as well as filed by Shri K.L. Meena was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal (W.A. No.163/2026) filed by Shri K.L. Meena on 16/1/2026. Whether the order of issuing show cause notice for initiating contempt proceedings was under challenge before the Division Bench or not should not have been a criterion for the Chief Secretary for not placing a copy of the order of administrative warning in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena because it was the act of the Chief Secretary which should have been followed by placing the copy of the order of warning in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena, but that was also not done. Thus, the assessment made by this Court regarding the conduct of the State authorities in protecting their officers is correct and is borne out from the subsequent conduct of the State officers also.
59. Be that whatever it may be.
60. Now, one thing is clear that the order of warning is already a part of the service book of Shri K.L. Meena and the reviewing Authority, while Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 23 MCC-2445-2025 writing his ACR, cannot take shelter of the second part of the circular dated 3/4/1981 which gives him an authority to consider as to whether the delinquent officer had repeated the mistake after committing the mistake which was reprimanded or for which administrative warning was given.
61. Under these circumstances and in view of the repeated request made by Shri S.S. Kushwaha that although this Court may be of the view that the written apology tendered by Shri K.L. Meena is not sufficient and is an afterthought, but looking to his career, this Court may not initiate proceedings for contempt of court and may adopt a lenient view, thus by holding that Shri K.L. Meena was negligent and did not hesitate in making a false statement before this Court even at the cost of the State property, still by showing magnanimity, this Court has decided not to initiate proceedings for contempt of Court. But this conduct of Shri K.L. Meena shall always be kept in mind by the Authorities during his service tenure.
62. Since a copy of the administrative warning issued by the Chief Secretary has already been kept in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena though reluctantly, this proceeding, so far as the conduct of Shri K.L. Meena is concerned, is hereby dropped and the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, is directed to keep a copy of this order also in the service book of Shri K.L. Meena.
63. It is made clear that power to ignore the administrative warning as given in the circular dated 3/4/1981 is not applicable to this order or to the administrative warning given by the Chief Secretary and the Authorities shall not ignore this order or administrative warning by holding that Shri K.L. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18 24 MCC-2445-2025 Meena had never repeated the act of contempt of court subsequent to the incident in question.
64. List this case for consideration on merits on 21/1/2026.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 20-01-2026 14:50:18