STATE OF M.P. Vs. AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard I.A.No.948/2018, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) State is challenging the impugned order on the ground that vide impugned order, learned Single Judge has quashed the charge-sheet issued against respondent Amresh Shrivastava holding that the respondent/petitioner has passed certain orders in regard to mutation of certain pieces of land in exercise of his quasi-judicial authority which he was exercising as Tahsildar, Distt. Gwalior, and therefore, his acts are protected by the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. It is submitted that reliance placed by learned Single Judge on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Singh in Civil Appeal No.1159/2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.16418/14 is misplaced inasmuch as the case of the present respondent is not identical vis a vis the case of the said petitioner before the Supreme Court, namely Virendra Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that finding of learned Single Judge that charge-sheet has been issued in the matter of mutation orders passed by the respondent/petitioner 14 years back, in fact amounts to issuing of charge-sheet in a stale matter, and therefore, holding it to be in favour of the petitioner and against the State is also an arbitrary and incorrect finding.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that respondent/petitioner was posted as Tahsildar in Distt. Gwalior between July, 1993 to September, 1998. In the year 2009, a notice was issued by respondent No.3 i.e. the Collector, Distt. Gwalior, asking the petitioner to showcause in regard to settlement of land made by him in favour of one Kuber Singh. It is submitted that petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the order passed by him and had deposited requisite fee with respondent No.2 in the writ petition on 17.4.2009. Thereafter, petitioner sought time from Collector, Gwalior, vide communication dated 18.9.2009 stating that there were holidays on 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st September, 2009, and therefore, he be granted fifteen days' time to file his reply from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order he had applied for. Thereafter again vide communication dated 5.2.2010 petitioner/respondent had informed the Collector that he has not been provided copy of the order despite best of his efforts, therefore, unless he formally gets copy of the order, he will not be able to furnish his reply. Thereafter, Collector, Gwalior, had passed an order proposing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and cancelling the mutation orders passed by the petitioner after taking such cases in suo motu revision.