AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

The charges against the Appellant were held to be allegations of a wrongful quasi-judicial order passed in good faith without evidence of extraneous influence or gratification and thus do not fall within the K.K. Dhawan exceptions to warrant disciplinary proceedings; further, there was an unexplained inordinate delay of 14 years in initiating departmental proceedings when the alleged misconduct was within the department's knowledge, and such delay justified quashing the State's appeal and restoring the Single Judge's order quashing the chargesheet.

Parties
Appellant: Amresh Shrivastava; Respondent(s): The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Quasi Judicial Orders, Land Settlement, Chargesheet, Unexplained Delay, Extraneous Influence
Service Law Administrative Law Revenue Law Disciplinary Proceedings Quasi Judicial Orders Land Settlement Chargesheet Unexplained Delay +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amresh Shrivastava

Appellant

The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chargesheet issued to the Appellant falls within the scope of the exceptions in K.K. Dhawan permitting disciplinary action against a quasi-judicial officer
  2. 2 Whether unexplained inordinate delay (14 years) in issuing the chargesheet is, by itself, a ground for quashing the chargesheet and stopping departmental proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The charges against the Appellant were held to be allegations of a wrongful quasi-judicial order passed in good faith without evidence of extraneous influence or gratification and thus do not fall within the K.K. Dhawan exceptions to warrant disciplinary proceedings; further, there was an unexplained inordinate delay of 14 years in initiating departmental proceedings when the alleged misconduct was within the department's knowledge, and such delay justified quashing the State's appeal and restoring the Single Judge's order quashing the chargesheet.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned Judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside
  • Order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge stands restored (chargesheet quashed)