Tahsildar performing quasi-judicial functions is 'judge'; protected from action for bona fide errors: MP High Court

Tahsildars performing quasi-judicial functions are "judges" under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and are protected from disciplinary action for bona fide errors committed in that capacity, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held [DK Kamthan v. State of Madhya Pradesh].

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat made the observation while quashing an order that had withheld the pension of DK Kamthan, who retired as Joint Collector of Morena in 2013.

His pension was withheld over land lease orders he had passed years earlier while officiating as Tahsildar at Gwalior's Dabra.

The dispute dated back to 2001-02, when Kamthan, as Tahsildar, sanctioned government lease of land to two individuals under the applicable revenue rules. In 2011, the lease was cancelled and a departmental enquiry was recommended against him.

A charge-sheet was issued in March 2013, a day before his retirement, and Kamthan explained in reply that the land was genuinely under cultivation and had caused no loss to the government.

The enquiry officer found the charges proved in 2016 and the State, invoked Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules of 1976 to withhold 10 percent of his pension for two years.

Before the High Court, Kamthan argued that he was entitled to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act of 1985 since he had been discharging quasi-judicial functions as Tahsildar.

He also contended that relevant documents were never supplied to him and that his conduct did not amount to misconduct.

The State defended the order, submitting that the enquiry had found the charges proved after due opportunity of hearing.

The Court examined Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, which defines a "judge" as any person empowered by law to give a legal proceeding a definitive judgment.

The Court also adverted to Section 3 of the Act which protects a judge from civil and criminal action for any act done by him in the discharge of his official duties.

In view of the same, the Court held that Kamthan, in passing lease orders under the MP Land Revenue Code, qualified as a judge for this purpose.

It followed that he was entitled to the additional protection under Section 3 of the Act.

The Court relied on earlier Division Bench rulings which had held that officers exercising quasi-judicial powers in good faith cannot be proceeded against departmentally for a mere error of judgment.

"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 Court ruled.

The Court also found the enquiry vitiated on two further counts: one, the advice of the Public Service Commission relied upon by the State was never furnished to Kamthan, contrary to settled principles of natural justice; and two, there was nothing on record to show any ill motive on his part, meaning the allegations, even if true, did not meet the legal threshold of misconduct.

The Court ruled that pension is a proprietary right that cannot be taken away without following due procedure and a definite finding on the gravity of the misconduct.

Hence, it directed the State to refund the withheld pension with 6% annual interest from the date of retirement within three months, failing which the interest rate would rise to 12% per annum.

Advocates Sunil Kumar Jain and Naincy Goyal represented the petitioner.

Government Advocate Monica Mishra represented the State.

[Read Judgment]