[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar Katare vs General Administration Department on 4 May, 2026
1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
W.P. No. 189/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT IND ORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 189 of 2020
VIRENDRA KUMAR KATARE
Versus
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amalpushp Shroti with Sh. Manu Maheshwari and
ShriTejas Vyas -Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargav -Dy.A.G for the respondents.
Reserved on : 16/04/2026
Post on : 04/05/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the
charge sheet dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by
Respondent No. 2. By way of the impugned charge sheet, the
petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings for a cause
of action pertaining to the year 2013.
2. The petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to quash the
impugned charge sheet and all consequential proceedings, declaring
the same as void ab-initio. The petitioner further prays for a
direction to the respondents to conduct a review Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Joint Collector to
consider his name, and to restrain the respondents from taking any
coercive action.
Facts of the Case
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Naib-Tehsildar on
14.08.1996. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Tehsildar
on 08.01.2003, and was further promoted as a Deputy Collector
vide order dated 28.10.2014. Presently, the petitioner is discharging
his duties as Deputy Collector, Dhar.
4. In the year 2013, the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar,
Ratlam. While performing his statutory quasi-judicial and executive
functions, the petitioner passed an order in accordance with law
3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
with regard to attached land bearing Survey No. 173, area 2.000
Hectares, and conducted auction proceedings in respect of the said
property.
5. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, he was directly served
with the impugned charge sheet dated 25.06.2019 without any prior
show-cause notice. The charge sheet levels four specific charges
against him regarding acts discharged during his tenure as Tehsildar
in the year 2013.
6. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are inter-related and pertain to the
auction of the attached property (Survey No. 173), which the
petitioner claims was done pursuant to the orders of this Court in
W.P. No. 5530/2012 and upheld in W.P. No. 7250/2013. Charge
Nos. 3 and 4 relate to an order dated 16.04.2013 passed in Case No.
18/A-6/12-13, whereby mutation was directed on the basis of a will.
Contentions of the Petitioner
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner acted as a quasi-judicial officer exercising powers
conferred under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 3 of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this
Court in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7916 (Premnarayan Vs. State of
4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
M.P.) and 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7358 (Kailash Bundela Vs.
State of M.P.).
8. It is further contended that the petitioner, discharging quasi-
judicial functions, cannot be issued a charge sheet for merely
passing an alleged wrong order without any allegation that the order
was influenced by extraneous factors or gratification. In support of
this contention, the petitioner relies upon the recent judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693 (Amresh
Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P.).
9. The petitioner strongly urges that the charge sheet, issued on
25.06.2019 for events of 2013, suffers from an unexplained and
inordinate delay of six years. It is argued that such belated initiation
of proceedings causes serious prejudice and vitiates the entire
inquiry.
10. Lastly, the petitioner contends that the charges leveled
against him are entirely vague, bogus, and unspecific. Charge Nos.
1 and 2 allege violation of High Court orders without specifying
which order was violated. Relying on Govt. of A.P. v A. Venkata
Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338, it is argued that cryptic charges bereft of
material particulars deserve to be quashed at the threshold.
5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
Contentions of the Respondents
11. Per contra, the respondents contend that the charge sheet was
issued to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 14 of the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966. It is stated that the petitioner deliberately exercised his
discretion to benefit another party by failing to act in accordance
with the law.
12. The respondents submit that a preliminary investigation
revealed that in one case, the petitioner auctioned land (Survey No.
173) in 2013, which had already been auctioned in 2002. In another
case, the petitioner transferred Bhu-daan land (Survey No. 89/2) on
the basis of a will without the prior permission of the Collector and
without verifying the death certificate of the testator, Nanuram.
13. It is argued that acting contrary to rules and principles
enunciated by law with the intention of benefiting any person falls
into the category of corruption and misconduct. Such acts cannot be
shielded under the garb of quasi-judicial functions.
14. Rejecting the ground of delay, the respondents submit that
information regarding the misconduct was received in 2016, leading
to a preliminary inquiry and the subsequent issuance of the charge
sheet in 2019. Relying upon State of Andhra Pradesh v. Apala
Swamy (2007 (14) SCC 49) and Additional Superintendent of
6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
Police v. T. Natarajan (1999 SCC L&S 646), it is argued that the
delay does not vitiate the inquiry. It is also submitted that the
petitioner's promotion to Joint Collector cannot be considered while
the inquiry is pending.
Analysis and Conclusion
15. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the record,
this Court must first outline the scope of judicial review in such
matters. Normally, the Court under Article 226 does not interfere
with the departmental enquiry and charges. However, interference
is firmly warranted in a case where the charges are prima facie
absurd.
16. The core issue relating to disciplinary action against an
officer discharging statutory or quasi-judicial duties is no longer
res-integra. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 : 1993 SCC
(L&S) 325 : 1993 SCC OnLine SC 59 at page 67 reads as
under:-
"28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who
exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts
negligently or recklessly or in order to confer
undue favour on a person is not acting as a
Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the
respondent has to be rejected. It is important to
7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
bear in mind that in the present case, we are not
concerned with the correctness or legality of the
decision of the respondent but the conduct of the
respondent in discharge of his duties as an
officer. The legality of the orders with reference
to the nine assessments may be questioned in
appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no
doubt in our mind that the Government is not
precluded from taking the disciplinary action for
violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we
conclude that the disciplinary action can be
taken in the following cases:
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as
would reflect on his reputation for integrity or
good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of
his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is
unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted
the prescribed conditions which are essential for
the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a
party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive,
however small the bribe may be because Lord
Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be
small, yet the fault is great".
17. The charges framed against the petitioner reads as under:
//आदे श//
8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
मध्यप्रदे श सिविऱ िेिा ( िगीकरण, सनयंत्रण तथा
अऩीऱ) सनयम, 1966 के सनयम-12 (2) एिं 13 (1) के
अधीन अनुशािसनक प्रासधकारी यथा राज्य शािन उक्त
सनयमों के सनयम 14 (3) के अंतगगत ऊऩर सनर्दग ष्ट
अनुशािसनक प्रासधकारी एतद् द्वारा श्री िीरे न्द्र कुमार कटारे ,
तत्काऱीन तहिीऱदार, रतऱाम ितगमान- र्िप्टी कऱेक्टर,
जिऱा-धार के विरूद्ध सनम्नानुिार आरोऩ असधरोवऩत करता है
:-
आरोऩ क्रमांक-1
यह र्क आऩ तहिीऱदार रतऱाम ( शहर) के ऩद
ऩदस्थ होने के नाते यह स्ऩष्ट होता है र्क आऩके द्वारा उक्त
नीऱामी में मान. उच्च न्द्यायाऱय के सनदे शों का स्ऩष्ट रूऩ
िे उल्ऱघंन करते हुए एक ऩक्ष के र्हत में ऩक्षऩात करते
हुए, अनैिसगगक, अिामान्द्य एिं िंर्दग्ध गसत िे िानबूझकर
त्रुर्टऩूणग आदे श ऩाररत करने एिं अऩने क्षेत्रासधकार िे बाहर
िाते हुए स्ित्ि के प्रश्न ऩर सनणगय दे ने एिं िंर्दग्ध रूऩ िे
एक ऩक्ष के र्हत में रजिस्री करने के आदे श र्दये गये, िो
र्क घोर वित्तीय असनयसमतता एिं शािन को गुमराह करने
की श्रेणी में आता है ।
आरोऩ क्रमांक-2
ििे क्रमांक 173 रकबा 2.000 हे . ग्राम बरबि हे तु
िर्ग 2002 में हुई नीऱामी में क्रेता शुभम कन्द्स्रक्शन्द्ि द्वारा
ििागसधक बोऱी के आधार क्रय की गई भूसम ऩर कोई
कायगिाही न र्कये िाने के कारण यही ििे नं. िर्ग 2013 में
ऩुन् सनऱाम होकर मेििग आशा ररयऱ स्टे ट द्वारा विक्रय कर
9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
दी गई, जििका िेऱ ऱेटर आऩके द्वारा िारी र्कया गया, िो
र्क मान. उच्च न्द्यायाऱय के सनदे शों के विरूद्ध है ।
तहिीऱदार तहिीऱ-रतऱाम होने के नाते आऩको नीऱाम हुई
भूसम के िंबध
ं में क्या कायगिाही हुई, इिकी िानकारी रखनी
थी।
आरोऩ क्रमांक-3
आऩके द्वारा प्रकरण क्रमांक 18/अ-6/12-13 आदे श
र्दनांक 16.04.2013 के द्वारा ग्राम करमदी, तहिीऱ ि
जिऱा-रतऱाम की भूसम ििे क्रमांक 89/2 रकबा 1.400
हे क्टर भूसम नानूराम वऩता उदा िासत बऱाई िा.दे ह. भू-दान
कृ र्क भू-रािस्ि 10.50 को ििीयत नामे के आधार ऩर
अतुऱ वऩता कृ ष्णकुमार खण्िे ऱिाऱ, सनिािी इन्द्दौर को
नामांतरण कर दी गई । िबर्क भू-दान असधसनयम 1968
की धारा-33 के अंतगगत कऱेक्टर की अनुमसत के वबना भू-
दान भूसम के अंतरण ऩर रोक है । आऩका कृ त्य शािन नीसत
के विरूद्ध होकर असनयसमतता की श्रेणी में आता है ।
आरोऩ क्रमांक-4
भू-धारक भूसमस्िामी नानूराम वऩता उदािी द्वारा ििीयत
र्दनांक 31.01.1989 उर्ा वऩता दे िी प्रिाद के ऩक्ष में की
गई। ििीयतकताग नानूराम वऩता उदािी का मृत्यु प्रमाण-ऩत्र
प्रस्तुत नही होने के बाििूद भी आऩके द्वारा मात्र ऩटिारी
ररऩोटग एिं ऩंचनामे के आधार ऩर मृत्यु होना माना गया, िो
र्क ऩदीय कतगव्यों के सनिगहन में अक्षमता को दशागता है ।
18. 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
10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 as established in 2024 SCC OnLine
MP 7916 (Premnarayan) and 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7358
(Kailash Bundela).
19. On a bare reading of the charges framed against the
petitioner, it is apparent that the actions of the petitioner, which
form the bedrock of the charge sheet, were performed strictly in his
capacity as a quasi-judicial officer under the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959. To appreciate this protection, the specific
facts of the charges must be juxtaposed with the statutory duties of
a Tehsildar.
20. In respect of Charge Nos. 1 and 2, the allegations pertain to
the auction proceedings of the attached property bearing Survey No.
173 and the subsequent issuance of a sale certificate. 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.
21. Similarly, Charge Nos. 3 and 4 directly arise from the
judicial order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the petitioner in a
formally instituted Revenue Case (Case No. 18/A-6/ year 2012-13).
The allegations state that the petitioner mutated land bearing Survey
11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
No. 89/2 on the basis of a Will and deduced the death of the
original landowner, Nanuram, by weighing evidentiary documents,
namely a Patwari report and a Panchnama. The process of mutation,
the appreciation of a Will, and the evaluation of local inquiry
reports (Panchnama) to ascertain the death of a party are classic
adjudicatory functions of a Revenue Court.
22. Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 affords
absolute protection to any person who is empowered by law to give
a definitive judgment in any legal proceeding. Because the
petitioner was presiding over formal revenue cases and adjudicating
civil rights pertaining to land revenue and title mutation under the
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, his actions squarely fall within the
protective ambit of the Act.
23. Consequently, even if the mutation order was erroneous or
the auction procedure suffered from legal infirmities, such errors of
judgment made during the lawful exercise of statutory powers
cannot be categorized as administrative misconduct. This specific
legal position, shielding Revenue Officers from disciplinary
proceedings for quasi-judicial errors, has been conclusively
affirmed by this Court in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7916
(Premnarayan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and 2024 SCC
OnLine MP 7358 (Kailash Bundela Vs. State of Madhya
12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
Pradesh). Therefore, the charges are legally unsustainable on this
ground alone.
24. Furthermore, regarding Charges 3 and 4, the petitioner
discharging quasi-judicial functions could not be issued a charge
sheet for passing an alleged wrongful order without any allegation
of the order being influenced by extraneous factors or gratification.
In 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693 (Amresh Shrivastava Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"16. In the present care, we are of the considered
view that the charges alleged against the Appellant
in the chargesheet fall under the category of a
wrongful under which does not appear to have been
influenced by extraneous factors or any form of
gratification. h appears that the order has been
passed in good rank without any indication of
dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the
Show Care Notice do not suggest any such
impropriety. The 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 as
mentioned above, supports this view Consequently,
the first question is answered in favor of the
Appellant"
13 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
25. Regarding the six-year delay in issuing the charge sheet, the
Supreme Court in the identical context of Amresh Shrivastava
(supra) held as under:
"17. As to the second question, regarding whether
delay is a ground for stopping the departmental
proceedings at the stage of the charge sheet itself,
office it to say that this varies from case to case.
However, in the instant case where there is
unexplained in ordinate delay in initiating
departmental proceedings despite the alleged
misconduct being within the knowledge of the
department, but still no departmental proceedings
are initiated, the answer must go in favor of the
employee. However, there may be cases where the
department was not even aware of such irregularities
or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is
indicative, based on material considerations of
factors other than merit, such as extraneous
influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a
delay, by itself would not be a valid ground so scuttle
the initiation of the process of departmental
proceedings."
26. Lastly, the charges leveled against the petitioner are vague,
unspecific, and bogus. Specifically, Charges 1 and 2 fail to mention
which exact order of the High Court was violated. Dealing with
such vague charges, the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v A.
Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338 held as under:
14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
"8. The High Court in para 12 of the judgment
observed thus "It is also to be noted that the so-
called directions of GOs issued by the
Government on the subject were not even placed
before the enquiry officer. It is on record that
the delinquent officer only renewed the deposits
already made by his predecessors. Under those
circumstances, the Tribunal has categorically
observed that Charge 1 cannot be held to be
proved on the basis of the material available on
record""
"9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by
the High Court. It is a settled principle of
natural justice that if any material is sought to
be used in an enquiry, then copies of that
material should be supplied to the party against
whom such enquiry is held. In Charge 1, what is
mentioned is that the respondent violated the
orders issued by the Government. However, no
details of these orders have been mentioned in
Charge 1 it is well settled that a charge-sheet
should not be vague but should be specific. The
authority should have mentioned the date of the
GO which is said to have been violated by the
respondent, the number of that GO, etc. but that
was not done. Copier of the said GOs or
directions of the Government were not even
placed before the enquiry officer. Hence,
Charge I was not specific and hence no finding
of guilt can he fixed on the basis of that charge.
Moreover, as the High Court has found, the
respondent only renewed the deposit already
made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the
15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12617
opinion that the respondent cannot be found
guilty for the offence charged"
27. 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.
28. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned charge
sheet dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure P/1) and all consequential
proceedings are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to
conduct a review DPC for the post of Joint Collector and the name
of the petitioner be considered strictly in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by the quashed proceedings.
29. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
hk/
