Virendra Kumar Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the charge sheet Annexure P-1 and P1-A. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer. By order dated 29.6.2012 it was directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. The charge sheet Annexure P1-A dated 16.5.2011 was issued. In this charge sheet the singular charge against the petitioner was made which reads as under:-

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner decided the Case No. 18/A-6-A/2006-2007 while acting as a quasi judicial officer. In the charge sheet, there is no allegation of any ulterior motive, favouring the litigant, adopting corrupt practice etc and, therefore, for rendering even a wrong decision in a quasi judicial capacity, he cannot be subjected to disciplinary action. This order passed by the petitioner dated 3.1.2009 was set aside by the revisional authority (Collector). The Collector in his revisional order has not passed any remarks/strictures against the petitioner. Against the order of Collector, a revision is pending before the Commissioner. By relying on Collector''s order dated 12.6.2012, it is contended that even Collector opined that no disciplinary action needs to be taken against the petitioner. The decision of disciplinary authority/Commissioner is awaited and till such time, in the fitness of things, no action be taken against the petitioner.

The bone of contention of Shri Prashant Sharma is that the quasi judicial authority cannot be subjected to disciplinary action for passing even a wrong order when the said wrong order is not actuated with any malafide, ulterior motive or favouring the party etc.

Per contra, Shri B. Raj Pandey, Govt. Advocate submits that at this stage no interference is required by this Court. He placed heavy reliance on the imputation of the charges (page 16). On the strength of this, he submits that the petitioner has committed mis conduct. The aforesaid conduct can be established only in a duly constituted disciplinary proceeding and at this stage correctness of charges cannot be gone into/examined.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the points involved in this case are no more res-integra. In Union of India and Others Vs. K.K. Dhawan, , the Apex Court concluded that the disciplinary action can be taken against quasi judicial authority in 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.

In P.C. Joshi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the Apex Court again considered the judgment of K.K. Dhawan and other cases on the subject. The Apex Court followed the principle laid down in K.K. Dhawan in P.C. Joshi (supra).

On the basis of aforesaid judgments, there is no manner of doubt that for taking wrong view or passing a wrong judgment alone, an officer cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. At best it may be said that the view taken by the said officer is not proper or correct. However, this view can be taken when no corrupt motive, favouritism etc. are alleged against him. If there is serious judicial impropriety alleged as held in Dhawan or the officer has acted negligently or omitted the prescribed norms which are essential for exercise of judicial powers, he can be subjected to disciplinary action.

A minute reading of imputations of charges will show that it is alleged against the petitioner that petitioner has not taken into account the finding of earlier presiding officer dated 10.7.2007 and passed the order without hearing the arguments of the parties. Thus, there exists an allegation of omitting/violating prescribed conditions/norms and acting negligently contrary to the propriety. As per the test laid down in Dhawan, it falls within the ambit of misconduct. In other words, if this allegation is proved, it will constitute a misconduct. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, it cannot be said that the disciplinary action against the petitioner was impermissible. The correctness of allegations cannot be examined at this stage as held by Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Upendra Singh, . Whether or not the said allegation of deciding the matter without hearing the parties is correct will be dealt with by the enquiry officer in a duly constituted enquiry. The correctness of that charge cannot be examined at this stage. Putting it differently, it cannot be said that if allegations are accepted on its face value, it do not constitute misconduct. In that eventuality, no interference is warranted by his Court at this stage. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, no interference at this stage is warranted by this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition against charge sheet is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. No cost.