Tahsildar Exercising Quasi Judicial Function Is Entitled To Protection Available To Judges: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while allowing the petition of the retired Joint Collector of Morena against the order that withheld his pension, held that tahsildars performing quasi-judicial functions are entitled to receive additional protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 275]The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed:"exercising his power under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is a Judge and, therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 3 (1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and no Court could entertain any civil or criminal proceedings against him for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function". The petitioner's pension was withheld over a 2001-02 dispute, while he was posted as Tahsilar in Dabra. The dispute was related to land lease orders that he had passed. Per the petitioner, the orders were related to the issuance of a government lease (settlement) to two people under Clause 24 of the revenue book circular. The petitioner claimed that it was a small part and was settled with the nearby landowner for farming and not on the basis of adverse possession. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he followed the lease, rules and regulations. The said order was cancelled by the Collector (respondent no 3), who also initiated an inquiry against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner received notice of the inquiry merely months before his retirement. The notice was set on June 18, 2012, while the petitioner retired on March 31, 2013. He submitted a reply to the notice, and a chargesheet was issued on March 30, 2013, a day before his retirement. The petitioner filed a reply on April 12, 2013, submitting that the land was being cultivated by the persons and therefore there was no loss to the government. The enquiry and presenting officers were appointed, who conducted the inquiry and submitted a report. Thus, a major penalty of withdrawal of 10% amount of the pension for 2 years was imposed. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations in the impugned order do not come under the definition of misconduct. It was further argued that since he was appointed as Tahsildar, he is entitled to the benefit of the Judges Protection Act, 1985. The counsel argued that the advice of the public service commission, upon which the State relied, was not supplied to the petitioner. Referring to Section 30 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the bench held"non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of natural justice and advice from PSC should be supplied in advance and if the same is not done, the enquiry is vitiated on the count of violation of natural justice and in the present case, advice from MPPSC has not been supplied in advance, and as per Rule 30 of Rules, 1966 relevant documents were also not supplied, hence, the enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of natural justice". Regarding the issue of the petitioner's conduct amounting to misconduct, the bench noted that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had an ill motive while exercising his quasi-judicial function, and therefore, his action cannot be termed as misconduct. The bench concluded that, "though mandatory consultation with the State Public Service Commission was undertaken, however, the copy of the said advice was not supplied to petitioner and petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing in respect of the said advice. The petitioner, discharging quasi-judicial functions, is entitled to the protection available under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985". Therefore, the bench held that imposing such a drastic penalty of withholding pension is justified when there is a "definite finding" recorded regarding the gravity of misconduct and the ultimate result of said misconduct. Case Title: DK Kamthan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP. No. 14329 of 2018Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 275For Petitioner: Advocates Sunil Kumar Jain and Naincy GoyalFor State: Government Advocate Monica MishraClick here to read/download the Order

Tahsildar Exercising Quasi Judicial Function Is Entitled To Protection Available To Judges: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Any person empowered by law to give definitive judgment to legal proceedings is a Judge, Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Tahsildar Exercising Quasi Judicial Function Is Entitled To Protection Available To Judges: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Any person empowered by law to give definitive judgment to legal proceedings is a Judge, Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers