Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078
1 WP-12452-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 12452 of 2009
SANJAY KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Girish Kekre G.A. appeared for respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire relevant records pertaining to issuance of impugned order dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) and 30.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.
(ii) That, disciplinary upon holding that the proceedings against the petitioner were bad in law, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned orders dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) and 30.7.2009 (Annexure P-2).
(iii) That, consequently, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to command the respondents to restore all consequential benefits to the petitioner as if the impugned disciplinary proceedings are never initiated against the petitioner and he was never subjected to impugned punishment vide orders dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) and 30.7.2009 (Annexure P-2).
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of petitioner.
(v) Award the cost of the instant petition to the petitioner."Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 2 WP-12452-2009
2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner herein while being posted as a Naib Teshildar in district Tikamgarh was issued a charge- sheet levelling as many as 12 charges on account of procedural irregularities in land management committed by him. Consequently, departmental inquiry was instituted wherein four out of the eleven charges stood proved. Resultantly, a penalty of withholding three increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 12.03.2009 (Annexure -P/1 ). Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, but to no avail, as the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure P/2). Assailing the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court. Hence, this petition has been filled.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is his case where the petitioner who in the capacity of Naib Tahsildar passed the quasi-judicial orders and those order were made basis to issue charge-sheet against the petitioner, as a result of which, the impugned order of withholding of three increments with cumulative effects has been passed. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that as many as 12 charges were framed against the petitioner and as per the inquiry report, charge No.1 and 11 were partly proved, charge Nos.2,3,4 and 7 were fully proved and remaining charges were not proved. It is contended by the counsel that charge Nos.1,2,3,4,7 and 11, on the face of it reflects that the said charges were based on the allegation that the petitioner in the capacity of Naib Tahsildar passed the quasi-judicial orders and allotted land on Patta, such order could not have been passed as the aforesaid orders suffer from infirmity as well as Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 3 WP-12452-2009 procedural lapse.
4. It is contended by the counsel that in none of the charges, there were any allegation against the petitioner regarding the extraneous consideration or that the orders were the offshoot of any gratification to the petitioner. On the contrary, the validity of the orders was questioned by the Authority while issuing the charge sheet to the present petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of the Judges Protection Act, and as per the law laid down by the Indore Bench of this Court in Om Prakash Shrivastava vs. General Administration Department & Ors. in W.P. No. 28883/2018 decided on 13.02.2020, there could not have been any disciplinary action against the present petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner bonafidely performed the duties in the capacity of Naib Tahsildar and passed the orders. All the orders were passed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as well as RBC and if those orders were not sustainable, the same could have been subjected to challenge in the appeal. Even in most of the cases, appeals were preferred and in some appeals, the petitioner's orders were set aside and in some of the cases, the petitioner's orders were maintained, but the fact remains that on account of passing of said orders, the State did not incur any loss and this fact finds mention in paragraph 4 of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is contended by the counsel that the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration a letter of Collector, Tikamgarh dated 23/02/2008 and in the said letter it was clearly mentioned that the Patta which were alloted by the present petitioner were later on cancelled by the order of Appellate Authority Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 4 WP-12452-2009 and therefore the State did not incur any loss. As such, counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid, there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to impose major penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effects. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority also declined to entertain the appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed vide order contained in Annexure P/2.
5. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the removal of the petitioner was appropriate in view of the gravity of the charges that stood proved against him. It is further contended that the penalty imposed was commensurate with the misconduct displayed by the petitioner and the departmental proceedings was conducted after due adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. Thus, the petition being misconceived and baseless deserves to be dismissed.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
7. Heard rival submissions of the parties and a perusal of the record, reflects that following charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner:
"आरोप मांक-1 राज व िनर क म डल बड़ागांव के राज व करण कमांक 5/(अ)/19(4)/02-03 ारा ी भरत तनय भागवत लोधी िनवासी डू ड़ा तहसील ट कमगढ़ को म० ० म उपयोग क जा रह दखल र हत भूिम पर भूिम वामी अिधकार का दाय कया जाना ( वशेष उपबंध) अिधिनयम 1984 का सहारा दे कर भूिम खसरा न बर 2431, 2432 रकवा कमशः 0.644, 0.450 हे टे यर एक रकवा 1.094 हे टे यर का यव थापन वीकार कया गया है । करण म सल न खसरा पंचशाला क नकल म आवेदक का अ टू बर 84 फसली क जा भी दज नह ं है और न ह आवेदक खेतीहर कृ षक है इस कारण उ अिधिनयम के अंतगत वीकृ त यव थापन क कायवाह अिनयिमत एवं अवैधािनक है । अिधिनयम 84 के उपबंध को गलत तर के से उपयोग कया गया है ।
आरोप कमांक-2 Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 5 WP-12452-2009 करण कमांक 4अ / 19 (4)2003 ारा ी भरत के दस ू रे भाई ी आशाराम तनय भागवत लोधी िनवासी डू ड़ा को म० ०राज व पु तक प रप ख ड 4 मांक 3 भाग तीन क कं डका 24 के अंतगत भूिम खसरा न बर 1187 कुल रकवा 0. 975 म से रकवा 0.475 हे टे यर का यव थापन ीिमयम रािश 20 पया मा पर वीकार कया गया है , करण म सल न खसरा क नकल म उ यव था पत भूिम पठार मद म दज है जसक नवैयत प रवतन कराए वगैर उ यव था पत क कायवाह क गई व करण म ीिमयम का िनराधारण कर रािश बाजार क मत से जमा नह ं कराई गई है क तु भूिम को डय के दाम यव था पत क गई है इन तरह हजार पये मू य क शासक य भूिम मा 20 पया ीिमयम पर यव था पत कर द गई है जो अिनयिमत पद अवैधािनक कायवाह है ।
आरोप कमांक-3 करण मांक 10/(अ)/19/02-03 ारा आवेदक मश: 2 आशाराम तनय भगवत लोधी को पुनः भूिम खसरा न बर 636/3 रकवा 1.203 हे टे यर भूिम का यव थापन अिधिनयम 1984 के तहत वीकार कया गया है जब क करण म संल न खसरा नकल म आवेदक का अ टू बर 1984 म फसली क जा दज नह ं है न ह आवेदक खेतीहर िमक है म० ० शासन राज व वभाग के प रप दनांक 2-3-02 के पालन म उ भूिम चरनोई से बजर (का वलका त) कले टर ट कमगढ़ के करण कमांक 484/ (अ)/59/01-02 आदे श दनांक 22-3-2002 ारा ह रजन / आ दवासी वग के भूिमह न को वं टत कए जाने हे तु कराई गई, क तु उ ह भूिम वं टत न कर आशाराम लोधी (अ य वग के य ) को आवं टत कर द । इस तरह ह रजन एवं आ दवासी वग के हत के ितकूल शासनादे श को नजर अंदाज कर उ यव थापन क कायवाह क गई है जो अिनयिमत एवं अवैधािनक कायवाह है ।
आरोप मांक-4 करण कमांक 3/ (अ)/19 (4)/02-03 ारा आवेदक के पता भागवत लोधी िनवासी डू डा क माता बेट बाई को म० ०राज व पु तक प रप ख ड-4 कमांक 3 क क डका 24 के अंतगत भूिम खसरा न बर 1187 रकवा 0.975 हे टे यर म से रकवा 0.500 का यव थापन ीिमयम रािश 20 पया मा पर वीकार कया गया है । इस तरह उ ावधान के अंतगत ी जैन नायब तहसीलदार ारा अिनयिमत एवं अवैधािनक ढ़ग से भूिम यव थापन क कायवाह क गई है ।
आरोप कमांक-5 उपरो यव थापन क कायवाह एक ह प रवार के सद य को पृथक-पृथक प से क गई है । एक प रवार के तीन सद य को कुल 3.272 हे टे यर भूिम यव था पत क गई Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 6 WP-12452-2009 है । इस तरह शासनादे श को नजर अंदाज कर यव थापन क कायवाह क गई है जो अिनयिमत एवं अवैधािनक है । आरोप कमांक-6 ी भागवत लोधी क मॉ बेट बाई के नाम ाम है दरपुर म पूव से 12.610 हे टे यर भूिम धा रत थी एवं आवेदक के पता ी भागवत के नाम ाम डू ड़ा म 0.910 हे टे यर भूिम धा रत थी व पु आशाराम के नाम है दरपुर 0.475 हे टे यर भूिम धा रत थी । इस तरह उ प रवार म कुल 13.995 हे टे यर भूिम पूव से धा रत थी ।
आरोप मांक-7 करण मांक 6/(अ)/19 (4)/02-03 ारा ीमती ल मीबाई प ी पूरन ा० िनवासी डू ड़ा को भूिम खसरा न बर 1539 कुल रकवा 0.255 हे टे यर म से अंश भाग 0.200 हे टे यर भूिम थित ाम डू डा का यव थापन उपरो क डका 24 के तहत 20 पया ीिमयम मा पर तैयार कया गया है खसरा नकल म उ भूिम "पौरा" मद म दज है अथात जहां पानी बहता है । वह भूिम यव था पत क गई है उ भूिम के यव थापन के अिधकार नायब तहसीलदार को नह ं है भूिम नवेयत िनयमानुसार कले टर से नह ं कराई गई और न ह बाजार दर से ीिमयम िलया गया। इस कार यव थापन क कायवाह पूणतः अिनयिमत एवं अवैधािनक प से बना नवैयत प रवतन के क गई है जो ग भीर अपराध क ण े ीम आती है ।
आरोप मांक-8 करण मांक 8/ (अ)/19 (4)/02-03 ारा दखल र हत अिधिनयम 84 के अनुसार सरजू तनय भूरा ढ मर मु ना अ छे , सुकद न तनय ब दव ु ा ढ मर, वसंता तनय ह रा ढ मर िनवासी न ह टे हर का भूिम खसरा न बर 151, 152, 153, 154 म एक रकवा 0.628 हे टे यर भूिम यव था पत क गई है । करण म सल न खसरा नकल आवेदक का फसली क जा राहत से म दज नह ं है जससे यव थापन का कायवाह अिनयिमत एवं अवैधािनक है आरोप मांक-9 करण मांक 1/(अ)/19(1)/2001-02 ारा ाम माडू मर खास तहसील ट कमगढ क भूिम का आवेदन 13 ह रजन को कया गया है । उ आवं टत भूिम ट कमगढ़ नगर य े क वाहय सीमा से 5 क०मी०के भीतर है । म० ०शासन राज व वभाग भोपाल के ापन मांक 4-7/2000/ सात/2 दनांक 2-3-2002 म दए िनदश के अनुसार नगरपािलका े क बाहय सीमा से 5 क०मी० क प रिध म आने वाली भूिमय के आवेदन हे तु तहसीलदार / नायब तहसीलदार को अिधकृ त नह ं कया गया है । इस कार ी जैन नायब तहसीलदार ारा पा एवं अपा अपनी वे छाचा रता से कया गया है । आरोप मांक-10 Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 7 WP-12452-2009 ाम भदोरा एवं परा उगड़ म भूिम आवंटन क या म वे छाचा रता से आवं टितय के नाम काटे एव जोडे गये है उ कृ त शासक य कत य म लापरवाह एवं उदासीनता का घोतक है जो कदाचरण क ण े ी म आता है ।
आरोप मांक 11:-
करण मांक 17/ (अ)/19 (1)/2001-02 वंटन करण ाम जटउवा खास के भूिम मे खसरा न बर 1034, 1035, 1036 व 1037 का कुल रकवा 4.827 हे टे यर भूिम वं टत क गई है ले कन इन खसरा न बर के वंटन हे तु कोई इ तहार जार नह ं कया गया जब क वंटन हे तु इ तहार जार कया जाना अिनवाय है एवं बंटन क या ामीण को छुपा कर एवं खसरा खतौनी व े स क ित करण म संल न नह ं क गई है । इससे प है क वंटन क कायवाह म वे छाचा रता से कया जाना प रल त होता है ।
उ वंटन करण म ी धरमुआ तनय लछुवा अ हरवार को भूिम खसरा न बर 1036/1 रकवा 0.800 हे टे यर भूिम वं टत क गई जब क उ आवं टित के पता लछुवा अ हरवार के नाम पूव से 1.416 हे टे यर भूिम थी फर भी आवं टितय को मनमाने ढं ग से वा त वक त य को नजर अंदाज कर भूिम आवं टत क गई ।
आरोप मांक 12 -
ी संजय कुमार जैन नायब तहसीलदार ट कमगढ़ ारा भूिम आवंटन के करण म म० ०राज व पु तक प रप व शासन के ावधान का अनुशरण नह ं कया गया है । प टा के सादा प टा गृ हता को तरमीम े स क ित नह द गई है जब क येक प टाधार को एक ित े स क द जाकर दस ू र ित करण म रखना थी । ाम जटउवा खास मे गौचर से बंजर कराये रकवा से अिधक भूिम आवं टत क गई है । जससे ा होता है क ी जैन नायब तहसीलदार ारा शासन के िनदश के वपर त वे छाचा रता से भूिम आवंटन / यव थापन अनैितक प म अपा लोग को कया गया है तो कदाचरण क ण े ी म आता है ।"
8. Out of the aforesaid 12 charges, according to the Inquiry Officer, Charge Nos.2,3,4 and 7 were fully proved. Charge No.1 and 11 were partly proved and Charge No.6,8,9 and 10 were not proved. A perusal of the charges which were proved/partly proved against the petitioner, it is evident that all the charges pertain to orders passed by the present petitioner in the capacity of a quasi-judicial Authority. According to the charges, there were certain irregularities, and the orders could not have been passed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 8 WP-12452-2009 petitioner in favour of the persons who were otherwise not entitled for such orders.
9. It is undisputed that the petitioner's orders were subjected to appeal, and the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the present petitioner, which pertained to grant of Patta (Lease). Considering the factum of setting aside of the petitioner's order by the Appellate Authority, even the Collector, intimated the Disciplinary Authority, that no loss was incurred to the State, and the orders granting Patta, were later on set aside by the Appellate Authority. It is evident from perusal of the charge-sheet that none of the charges has any nexus with any extraneous consideration at the behest of the present petitioner, while passing the impugned order, nor any allegation of demand of any gratification, nor were the orders passed under the influence of any other parties. Therefore, in the absence of any such allegation, in the considered view of this Court, the Disciplinary Authority could not have acted as an Appellate Authority, while disputing the validity of the orders passed by the present petitioner in the capacity of a quasi- judicial Authority.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Amresh Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 693 , has held in paragraph 16 as under:
"16. In the present case, we are of the considered view that 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. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 9 WP-12452-2009 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. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the first question is answered in favor of the Appellant."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Similarly, in one of its decisions, viz, Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs U.O.I. & Ors., reported in 1999 (7) SCC 409 , the Apex Court pointed out as under:
"43.If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge- sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings."
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, it is evident that in the case in hand, the petitioner has been dealt with a disciplinary action on the allegation that while acting as a quasi-judicial Authority, he passed some orders, which were not sustainable. Such an approach at the behest of the respondents, in the considered view of this Court was unsustainable inasmuch as, there was no allegation against the petitioner as regards any misconduct or extraneous consideration which led the petitioner to pass the Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:28078 10 WP-12452-2009 quasi-judicial orders. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. Resultantly, the impugned orders stand quashed. The amount withheld on the strength of the impugned order be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: 68a0eb5c-526b- 4cd2-b459-c24c3168a47d Signing time: 15-04-2026 18:01:50