Major Acts and Provisions:

1. Judges Protection Act, 1985 (JPA 1985) – Para 4

2. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Section 57(2) – Para 4

3. Constitution of India (COI) – Judicial Independence and Quasi-Judicial Immunity – Paras 7–9

Headnote:

• Quasi-Judicial Immunity – Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against an officer for mere errors in quasi-judicial orders unless allegations of extraneous influence, corruption, or malafide exist. Relied on:

  • Union of India vs. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56 – Para 6.1, 15

  • Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India (1999) 7 SCC 409 – Para 7

  • Krishna Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (2019) 10 SCC 640 – Para 7

  • Virendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – Para 8

• Inordinate Delay – Unexplained delay of 14 years in issuing chargesheet vitiates disciplinary proceedings. Relied on:

  • State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh (1990) Supp. SCC 738 – Para 18

  • P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636 – Para 18

• Scope of K.K. Dhawan Exceptions – Chargesheet must allege integrity breach, recklessness, or corrupt motive to bypass judicial immunity. Mere "wrong order" insufficient – Paras 15–16.

• Allowed the appeal, restoring Single Judge’s order quashing chargesheet – Para 19.

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation – Challenge to disciplinary proceedings against Appellant (Tehsildar) for a 1997 land settlement order alleged as illegal.

2. Remedy Sought – Quashing of chargesheet citing Judges Protection Act, 1985 and delay – Paras 1, 4.

3. Timeline –

   • 1997: Land settlement order passed.

   • 2009: Show Cause Notice issued.

   • 2011: Chargesheet filed.

   • 2017: Single Judge quashed chargesheet.

   • 2019: Division Bench revived proceedings.

4. Prior Decisions – Single Judge ruled in favor of Appellant; Division Bench reversed – Paras 5–6.

Issues:

1. Whether chargesheet fell within K.K. Dhawan exceptions for disciplinary action against quasi-judicial officers? – Held: No (Paras 15–16).

2. Whether 14-year delay barred proceedings? – Held: Yes (Paras 17–18).

Submissions:

• Appellant:

  • No malafide; order passed in good faith under Section 57(2), MP Land Revenue Code – Para 4.

  • Precedents protected quasi-judicial errors sans corruption – Paras 7–9.

• Respondent-State:

  • Alleged negligence and illegal order but failed to prove extraneous influence – Para 12.

Subjects:

Quasi-Judicial Immunity, Inordinate Delay, Judges Protection Act 1985, Disciplinary Proceedings, Land Revenue Code.