S. RAJENDRAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned charges framed against the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner had undervalued certain documents at the time of registration and thereby caused revenue loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 9,45,069 which came to be revealed during the audit objection.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the various decisions of this Court and submit that the petitioner, who was functioning as a Sub Registrar at the relevant point of time, was a quasi-judicial authority and the alleged failure to determine the correct stamp duty cannot be construed to be a misconduct and therefore, the respondent cannot be justified in proceeding with the disciplinary action against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate opposed the submission stating that the petitioner's function cannot termed to be a quasi-judicial function, since he does not decide the lis between the parties and in view of Rule 161 of the Tamilnadu Registration Rules, the petitioner is liable for any loss to the Government and therefore the charges have been rightly framed against him. He would further submit that it was found during the audit in the year 2012 itself that the loss has occurred to the Government owing to the lapse on the part of the petitioner and therefore he was called upon to give his objection. The petitioner, having submitted himself to the objection raised during the course of the audit and failed to make good the revenue loss, would be deemed to have indulged in acts of misconduct and therefore the charge memo need not be interfered with.