SANTOSH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process fee by RAD post within seven working days, failing which petition shall stands dismissed without reference to this Court.

(2.) Shri Katare is heard on the question of interim relief.

(3.) Petitioner has challenged the charge sheet on various grounds including the ground that all the charges are based on the allegation that the petitioner passed judicial orders which were set aside by the Collector in suo motu revision. Shri Katare submits that passing of an erroneous judicial order cannot be a reason for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. To elaborate, Shri Katare submits that the petitioner passed the orders in various cases while exercising his judicial powers. If those orders are set aside by the revisional authority, that does not mean that petitioner has committed any misconduct. There is no allegation of favoritism or passing the order on any extraneous consideration. In absence thereof, Shri Katare submits that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet on its face value does not constitute a misconduct. He relied on (Balram Vs. Aswani Kumar Yadav,2001 2 MPWN 273) (judgment reported in toto). The learned counsel submits that the Tahsildar is protected by Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and impugned charge sheet is impermissible in law.