[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash Nahata vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35397
1 WP-6173-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6173 of 2025
OMPRAKASH NAHATA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Aditi Mehta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawade - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally
heard.
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department of State of M.P.,
respondent No.1, as well as the order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P/2)
passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, District Ujjain, whereby
his license to perform as a notary has been cancelled.
02. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a notary
official within District Ujjain with his appointment being renewed on
25.02.2020 for a period of six years. A complaint was filed against the
petitioner on 22.06.2023 alleging that he had falsely obtained signatures in
the register, made a false contract, fraudulently usurped agricultural land
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35397
2 WP-6173-2025
worth Rs.4,00,00,000/- and blackmailed the complainant to sell at a lower
price. It was stated that in the contract, names of four persons were
mentioned, but the same was executed only by two persons.
03. On the basis of the complaint, a report was prepared by the VII th
District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain on 20.03.2024 wherein he found that
though in the agreement, there were allegedly four executants but only two
had signed upon the same. On the basis of the report, show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner which was replied to by him but reply was not found
satisfactory and eventually the impugned orders have been passed.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned
orders are in gross violation of the provisions contained in Section 10 (d) of
the Notaries Act, 1952 read with Rule 13(12)(b)(i) of the Notaries Rules,
1956. Even in the enquiry report, no misconduct was found on part of the
petitioner. His fault which was found, could at best be said to be
carelessness, negligence or irregularity but could not have by any stretch of
imagination be said to be a misconduct. The concept of misconduct has been
failed to be appreciated by respondents No.2 and 3. There was no ill
intention on part of the petitioner to commit any wrong. Punishment imposed
upon the petitioner is even otherwise extremely harsh since punishments
which can be inflicted besides removal are suspension also. It was not
mandatory for the petitioner to have been removed. It is hence submitted that
the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
04. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1 and learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35397
3 WP-6173-2025
consonance with Rule 13, Sub Rule 12(1)(i) of the Notaries Rules and
Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act pursuant to a duly conducted enquiry into
allegations of professional misconduct. The findings of the enquiry
unequivocally established that the petitioner had attested a false contract
which fraudulently usurped complainant of agricultural land worth
Rs.4,00,00,000/- and blackmailed the complainant to sell at a lower price
without maintaining and following the rules and regulations in that regard.
The impugned orders which have been passed against the petitioner are
hence perfectly justified.
05. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
06. The primary allegation against the petitioner appears to be that a
contract was presented before him for being notarized. There were four
persons named therein, but only two of them had signed upon the same
whereas the other two had not signed despite which the document was
notarized. On the allegation, an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry
Officer in which the aforesaid fact was affirmed. However, in that report
itself, it was specifically held that the contract in question is not a fraudulent
document as had been contended by the complainant. Thus, if signatures of
all four persons who had been named in the contract had not been obtained
by the petitioner, then the same could have been at best said to be an
irregularity, carelessness or negligence on his part but could not be said to be
misconduct on his part.
07. In Union of India and Others Vs. J. Ahmed, 1979 (2) SCC 286
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35397
4 WP-6173-2025
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that there
may be negligence in performance of duty but lapse in performance of duty
or error of judgment would not constitute misconduct. It has been held as
under:-
"11. *** It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest
standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute
misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance
of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in
discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly
attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would
be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative
of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence.
Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or
malevolence."
08. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, misconduct
as provided in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition states it to be as under:-
"A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong
behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency,
impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness"
09. In Dr. Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Others , W.P.
No.11701/2021 decided on 08.07.2024 it has been held by this Court as
under:
"Misconduct" means misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors
of judgment or innocent mistake, did not constitute such misconduct. The test must
always be whether in addition to the failure to do the duty, partial or entire, which
had happened, there had also been a failure to act honestly and reasonably".
10. Thus, it is evident that misconduct is intentional wrong doing. It
implies failure to act honestly and reasonably either according to the
ordinary and natural standards or according to the standard of a particular
profession and it does not cover mere negligence in duty which without any
ulterior motive cannot be equated with misconduct so as to warrant punitive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35397
5 WP-6173-2025
action.
11. If the petitioner had been negligent in not obtaining signatures of
all four persons who were named in the contract, it would at best be a case of
negligence on his part or an error in judgment. The same cannot be said to be
a misconduct on his part. His error did not warrant such a harsh step of
cancellation of his certificate of practice and instead a punishment of
suspension would have served the purpose. It is observed that the petitioner
has already been out of practice for a period of almost 11 months hence has
suffered much more as compared to the negligence committed by him.
12. Thus, in my opinion, respondents No.1 and 2 have committed a
gross error in passing their orders. Consequently, the impugned orders dated
30.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
