Property Attachment, Auction Part Of Quasi-Judicial Duties Of Tehsildar; Disciplinary Action Unsustainable Absent Malafide: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that attachment and auction of property for recovery of dues are quasi-judicial functions of a Revenue officer (Tehsildar), which cannot be questioned in disciplinary proceedings in the absence of alleged malafide.The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai stated,"The attachment and auction of property for the recovery of dues or execution of orders...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that attachment and auction of property for recovery of dues are quasi-judicial functions of a Revenue officer (Tehsildar), which cannot be questioned in disciplinary proceedings in the absence of alleged malafide.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai stated,
"The attachment and auction of property for the recovery of dues or execution of orders are formal statutory functions entrusted to a Revenue Officer. The record indicates that the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Tehsildar, executing the mandate of the law regarding attached property, which is inherently a quasi-judicial and formal executive function under the Code".
The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging a chargesheet issued in 2019 for actions dating back to 2013. The petitioner served as Tehsildar in Ratlam during the relevant period, was accused of irregularities in conducting auction proceedings of attached land and passing a mutation order based on a will.
The petitioner argued that he is entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The petitioner also argued that he cannot be issued a chargesheet for discharging quasi-judicial functions and for merely passing an alleged wrong order without any allegations of illegality or negligence. The petitioner also argued that the chargesheet was issued in 2019 for the allegations claimed in 2013, and so there was an inordinate delay of six years.
The State alleged that he acted beyond his authority, ignored legal requirements, and extended undue benefits to private parties. The State argued that the preliminary investigation revealed that in one case, the petitioner auctioned land in 2013, which was already auctioned in 2002. Further, the petitioner transferred Bhu-daan Land on the basis of a will without prior permission of the Collector and without verifying the death certificate of the testator.
Rejecting these contentions, the court noted that the petitioner's actions were squarely within the ambit of his statutory duties under MP land Recenue Code, 1959. The court observed that conducting auctions of attached property, issuing sale certificates, deciding mutation cases, and appreciating evidence are all classic quasi-judicial functions performed by revenue officers.
The bench held, "Upon analyzing the charges, it is evident that the petitioner was acting as a quasi-judicial officer under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Consequently, he is entitled to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985".
The court highlighted that even if an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority is erroneous, it cannot automatically give rise to disciplinary proceedings unless there is clear evidence of recklessness, misconduct, or intent to confer due favour.
Relying on Supreme Court cases of Union of India v KK Dhawan [(1993) 2 SCC 56], the court emphasized that disciplinary action is permissible only in cases involving lack of integrity, malafide, or gross negligence and not for mere errors of judgment.
The court noted that the chargesheet issued to the petitioner after an unexplained delay of 6 years has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The court also noted that the charges were vague, lacking any cogent evidence.
The bench held, "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".
The bench therefore quashed the impugned chargesheet and directed the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the petitioner's application for promotion to the post of Joint Collector.
Case Title: Virendra Kumar Katare v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 189/2020
For Petitioner: Advocates Amalpushp Shroti, Manu Maheshwari and Tejas Vyas
For State: Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargav