Tahsildar Entitled To Receive Additional Protection Under Judges (Protection) Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Withholding Pension
The petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was filed by a retired Government employee seeking a direction to refund the amount withdrawn from his pension.
While quashing an order withholding pension of a Tehsildar, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the petitioner being Tahsildar at the relevant point of time was entitled to receive additional protection to Judges given under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
The petition before the High Court was filed by a retired Government employee seeking a direction to refund the amount which had been withdrawn from his pension in pursuance to impugned order and payment of all the retiral dues to him including full pension, gratuity, etc.
The Single Bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat stated, “The advice of the Public Service Commission, relied upon by the State while passing the impugned order, was not supplied to petitioner, contrary to settled legal principles. No financial loss to the State has been proved, and there is no finding that the alleged misconduct was of such grave in nature as would warrant dismissal from service. In such circumstances, withholding of the petitioner’s pension under Rules, 1976 appears to lacking in sufficient legal basis. Accordingly, these aspects require careful judicial scrutiny.”
“Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments and enunciation of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner being Tahsildar at the relevant point of time was entitled to receive additional protection to Judges given under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985”, it added.
Advocate Sunil Kumar Jain represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Monica Mishra represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case as set up by the petitioner was that he stood retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on March 31, 2013, from the post of Joint Collector, Dist. Morena. During the period 2001- 02, he was posted at Dabra on the post of Tahsildar, and during this period, some orders were issued by the petitioner while officiating on the post of Tahsildar, Dabra, District Gwalior, regarding the issuance of Government lease (settlement) to Satendra Kumar and Abhay Kumar under 4.3 and clause 24 of the Revenue Book Circular. The land was a small part and had been settled by a nearby landowner for farming and not on the basis of adverse possession.
Prior to the initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, the order of lease was cancelled, and an inquiry was suggested against the petitioner. The petitioner received a notice regarding a departmental enquiry, and the charge-sheet was issued one day prior to superannuation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a reply and submitted that there was no loss to the Government as the land was being cultivated by the persons. The petitioner sought quashment of all the charges framed against him. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report, and the major penalty of withdrawal of 10% of the amount of pension for two years was imposed upon the petitioner.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Respondents had not supplied relevant documents to the petitioner, no loss was caused by the petitioner to the department, and the reply filed by the petitioner was not considered. “True it is that allegations made in the impugned order do not come under the definition of misconduct and also at the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Tahsildar and he is entitled to the benefit of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985”, it added.
The Bench further explained that as per Rule 30 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (Rules, 1966), every order, notice and other process made or issued under these rules should be served in person on the Government Servant concerned or communicated to him by registered post. The Bench took note of the fact that despite the aforesaid Rules, copies of relevant documents had not been supplied to the petitioner.
Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in S.N. Narula v. Union of India and others (2011), the Bench explained that since the advice from MPPSC had not been supplied in advance, and as per Rule 30 of the Rules, 1966, relevant documents were also not supplied, thereby vitiating the enquiry on account of violation of natural justice.
The Bench next dealt with the issue of whether the petitioner, who was Tahsildar, was entitled to the Judges Protection Act, 1985, while performing a quasi-judicial function. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was empowered to give judgment, the Bench held that he was a judge as per the definition given under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
The Bench further held, “Petitioner, 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”,
Considering that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had an ill motive while exercising his quasi-judicial function regarding the issuance of government lease (settlement), the Bench allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order and directed the Respondents to refund the withheld 10% pension of the petitioner for two years with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till actual payment was made.
Cause Title: Shri D.K. Kamthan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:18517)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Sunil Kumar Jain, Naincy Goyal
Respondent: Government Advocate Monica Mishra