Naib Tahsildar Performing Quasi-Judicial Duties Is A 'Judge', Protected From Disciplinary Action For Bonafide Errors: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Petitioner, discharging quasi-judicial functions, is entitled to the protection available under the Judges (Protection) Act. There is nothing on record to indicate any misconduct or mala fide conduct on the part of petitioner, " Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that a Naib Tahsildar exercising quasi-judicial functions, such as mutation proceedings, falls within the definition of a "Judge" under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

A Single Bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed that such officers are protected from disciplinary actions for acts done in good faith, noting that "a mere mistake committed while passing a quasi-judicial order does not partake the character or nature of misconduct."

The petitioner, Brij Bihari Rajput, retired as a Naib Tahsildar in July 2011. Prior to his retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him regarding a mutation order he passed in 2010, which was later cancelled by a superior officer. Although the enquiry report was submitted a day before his retirement, the State Government issued the final punishment order five years later in April 2016, directing a permanent 5% withdrawal of his pension.

The primary question before the court was whether a Naib Tahsildar performing quasi-judicial functions is entitled to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The court also considered whether the non-supply of the Public Service Commission (PSC) advice to the delinquent employee vitiates the punishment order and whether the Governor must personally sign such orders.

Court Rejects Argument That Governor Must Personally Sign Pension Withdrawal Orders

The petitioner argued that under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, only the Governor could personally pass an order to withhold pension. The court, however, rejected this contention by relying on the Full Bench decision in State of M.P. v. P.N. Raikwar and the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab.

Executive Power Exercised Through Rules Of Business

The bench observed that the Governor is the constitutional head and exercises powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The court clarified that the decision of a Minister or officer under the Rules of Business is legally deemed to be the decision of the Governor. Consequently, it held that the order stopping the pension did not require the personal signature of the Governor to be valid.

Non-Supply Of PSC Advice Vitiates The Disciplinary Proceedings

A crucial procedural lapse identified by the court was the State's failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the advice received from the M.P. Public Service Commission (MPPSC). The court noted that while the State had consulted the Commission as required under Rule 9, it failed to share that advice with the petitioner to allow him to represent his case against it.

Principles Of Natural Justice Demand Communication Of PSC Advice

Referring to the Supreme Court judgments in S.N. Narula Vs. Union of India and Union of India Vs. R.P. Singh, the court held that the advice of the PSC, if sought and utilized against a delinquent officer, must be communicated before the imposition of punishment. The bench emphasized that the "non-supply of the enquiry report or PSC advice is a breach of the principle of natural justice," which effectively vitiates the entire enquiry.

Naib Tahsildars Protected As 'Judges' Under The 1985 Act

The court conducted an in-depth analysis of Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, which defines a "Judge" as any person empowered by law to give a definitive judgment in a legal proceeding. It noted that since the petitioner was exercising quasi-judicial functions under the M.P. Land Revenue Code regarding mutation, he squarely fell within this definition.

Additional Protection Under Section 3 Of The Judges (Protection) Act

The bench highlighted that Section 3 of the Act provides an "umbrella of protection" to officers discharging quasi-judicial duties. It held that no court or authority should entertain proceedings against such an officer for any act done in the discharge of judicial duty, provided there is no evidence of ill-motive or mala fides.

"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."

Negligence Or Error Of Judgment In Quasi-Judicial Work Is Not Misconduct

Distinguishing between professional misconduct and simple negligence, the court relied on Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It observed that for an act to be termed "misconduct," it must be wilful or blameworthy. The bench noted that "merely lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability or negligent want of dealing with a matter" on an isolated occasion does not constitute misconduct.

Pension Is A Proprietary Right That Cannot Be Arbitrarily Taken Away

The court reiterated the settled legal position that pension is a proprietary right of an employee. It held that such a right cannot be curtailed without following the due process of law. Since the State failed to record a definite finding regarding the "gravity" of the alleged misconduct or any financial loss caused to the government, the court found the 5% pension cut to be legally unsustainable.

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated April 21, 2016, and directed the State to refund the withheld 5% pension. The court ordered that the arrears be paid with 6% interest per annum within three months, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12% per annum from the date of the petitioner's retirement.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2026