A NAYIMUNNISA Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the Enquiry Officer's Report dated 1. 8. 2005 is under challenge. The case of the petitioner is that 3 charges were framed against the petitioner in respect of functioning as a Sub-Registrar. The challenge is on the ground that even though in respect of the 3 charges, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges were not proved, however, in respect of charges No. 1 and 3 having held that the charges are not proved, the Enquiry Officer has given opinion that the same are partly proved.

(2.) A reference to the Enquiry Officer's Report shows that while narrating the Charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge that the petitioner has made correction in order to avoid an enquiry under section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, has not been proved. But, nevertheless stated that the said charge is partly proved. In respect of charge No. 2, the Enquiry Officer has given his opinion that the charge is not proved. However, in respect of charge No. 3, which is the final charge also, on analyzing the entire enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the charge that the petitioner has acted in order to cause loss to the Department has not been proved, however, finally concludes that it is partly proved.

(3.) IN view of the said contradictory stand taken by the Enquiry Officer, the present writ petition is filed. Admittedly, as against the Enquiry Officer's Report, the petitioner has in fact submitted his explanation on 25. 4. 2006 and the final order is yet to be passed.