In a landmark ruling delivered on April 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the pivotal question of whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings can, by itself, justify quashing a chargesheet. The decision in Civil Appeal No. 10590 of 2024, titled Amresh Shrivastava vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., saw the court allow the appeal of Amresh Shrivastava, a former Tehsildar, and set aside a 14-year delayed chargesheet against him. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, restored a single judge’s order quashing the disciplinary action, while also clarifying the scope of disciplinary proceedings against quasi-judicial officers.
The judgment overturned a Division Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had revived the chargesheet, and underscored that delay, combined with the absence of evidence of misconduct, can render departmental proceedings untenable. The case has significant implications for government servants exercising quasi-judicial functions and the timeliness of disciplinary actions.
Background of the Case
Amresh Shrivastava, the appellant, joined the revenue service as a Naib Tehsildar on June 15, 1981, and was promoted to Tehsildar on December 31, 1991. During his tenure in Gwalior district from July 1993 to September 1998, he passed a land settlement order on June 26, 1997, granting 1.5 hectares of land (Survey No. 1123/Min-3, Village Barua) to Kuber Singh and Madho Singh. The order was issued under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, after following due process—issuing notices, consulting the gram panchayat, and verifying the applicants’ cultivation claims. No objections were raised, and the order was not challenged, achieving finality.
Years later, on September 21, 2009, the Collector of Gwalior issued a show cause notice alleging that the settlement was illegal and benefited ineligible persons, causing a loss to the state. This was followed by a chargesheet on April 29, 2011, accusing Shrivastava of dishonesty and negligence. Contesting the chargesheet, Shrivastava filed Writ Petition No. 7114/2011 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing that the 13-year delay (later cited as 14 years in the Supreme Court) and lack of evidence of extraneous influence invalidated the proceedings. He sought protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, asserting his actions were quasi-judicial.
On April 26, 2017, a single judge of the High Court quashed the chargesheet, citing the unexplained delay. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed, and the Division Bench, on April 30, 2019, reversed the order, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. K.K. Dhawan (1993) to argue that negligence or favoritism by a quasi-judicial officer warranted disciplinary action. Shrivastava then approached the Supreme Court, represented by a team led by a Senior Advocate, while the state was represented by its counsel.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court framed two key issues for adjudication:
- Scope of Disciplinary Action Against Quasi-Judicial Officers: Whether the chargesheet fell within the exceptions outlined in K.K. Dhawan, which permit disciplinary action for misconduct, negligence, or extraneous influence, or if it was merely a case of an incorrect order not warranting such proceedings.
- Impact of Delay in Initiating Proceedings: Whether an unexplained 14-year delay in issuing the chargesheet was sufficient to quash departmental proceedings at the chargesheet stage, and under what circumstances delay alone could be decisive.
The Supreme Court’s Decision and Observations
The court answered both questions in favour of Shrivastava, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Division Bench’s impugned judgment dated April 30, 2019. The single judge’s order of April 26, 2017, quashing the chargesheet, was restored.
On the Scope of Disciplinary Action
The court revisited the K.K. Dhawan ruling, which lists six situations justifying disciplinary action, including actions reflecting poorly on integrity, recklessness, negligence, or corrupt motives. However, it emphasized that “mere technical violations or the fact that an order is wrong, if not falling under the above enumerated instances, does not warrant disciplinary actions.” Applying this to Shrivastava’s case, the court found:
- The chargesheet alleged a wrongful order but lacked evidence of extraneous influence, bribery, or dishonesty.
- The settlement order appeared to be passed in good faith, following statutory procedures, and the show cause notice did not suggest impropriety beyond legal error.
The court observed:
“In the present case, we are of the considered view that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet fall under the category of a wrongful order, which does not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification. It appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty.”
Citing precedents like Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India (1999) and Krishna Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (2019), the court reiterated that errors in quasi-judicial orders do not automatically imply misconduct unless supported by clear evidence of ulterior motives. The first question was thus resolved in Shrivastava’s favor.
On the Impact of Delay
Addressing the second issue, the court held that while delay’s sufficiency to quash proceedings varies case-by-case, an unexplained 14-year gap in this instance justified halting the inquiry. It noted:
- The alleged misconduct was known to the department since 1997, yet no action was taken until 2009-2011.
- The state failed to provide any justification for the delay or evidence of extraneous considerations that might override it.
The court stated:
“In the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate 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 favour of the employee.”
However, it clarified that delay alone might not suffice in cases where misconduct surfaces later or involves grave irregularities like corruption. The court referenced State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh (1990) and P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board (2005), noting that prolonged delays cause “unnecessary mental distress and damage the reputation of the employee” due to departmental lapses.
