S DHANALAKSHMI Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/Inspector General of Registration framed a charge against the petitioner stating that the petitioner, while serving as Sub Registrar in Thiruvotriyur in 1992, had registered 33 documents without sending them for field inspection and thereby contravening the instructions of the respondent issued in proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, had caused loss of revenue to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,01,305/- by way of deficit Stamp Duty and Registration fees. For the said lapse and financial loss caused by the petitioner, the Inspector General of Registration/respondent herein, who is the disciplinary authority, instituted disciplinary action against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules. The petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, submitted a detailed explanation denying all the charges. Disagreeing with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was held and before the enquiry officer, the petitioner deposed that the proceedings issued by the respondent in No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, were not received in the office of the Sub Registrar and therefore, the instructions conveyed in the said proceedings could not be followed. The enquiry officer, after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties, came to the conclusion that the proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, was not received in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruvotriyur. Therefore, the instructions conveyed to visit the site, where the building is situated, so as to value the site as well as building, could not be done. The enquiry officer, in his findings, having found the petitioner not guilty of charge levelled against him, finally, recommended to drop the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that there are provisions under the Stamp Act to recover the loss of revenue caused by the petitioner by means of invoking the provision under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the enquiry officer has recommended for dropping all the proceedings on the ground that there are provisions under the Stamp Act to recover the loss of revenue by means of initiating action under Section 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect by his proceedings No.14322/B4/93, dated 07.09.98. Since the said imposition of punishment is heavily affecting the petitioner's promotion as well as his pensionable benefits, he has challenged the said impugned punishment by way of filing O.A. before the Tribunal.

(3.) In his further submission, it was contended that the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration in his proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, had not reached the office of the petitioner and therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have accepted the recommendation of the enquiry officer to drop the proceedings, since the enquiry officer also has recommended to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of loss of revenue under Section 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act. Since the disciplinary authority has unilaterally imposed the punishment ignoring the findings of the enquiry officer, it was contended that the impugned punishment cannot stand to any good reason and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the impugned order.