S. PATHMANAMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- The petitioner is a practising Advocate Aranthangi. On 03.04.1987, the petitioner was appointed as Notary by the Government of Tamil Nadu and his Certificate of Notary has been periodically renewed and it is valid up to 26.01.2017. On 16.12.2011, the respondent issued a show cause notice calling for explanation with regard to certain misconduct. The above notice said to have been issued based on a complaint received from the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, dated 22.11.2011 alleging that the petitioner has put his official signature and Notary seal in an affidavit sworn to by one Mrs.Mumtaj Begum and Mr. Abubakar dated 12.10.2011 in which one of the deponents namely, Mr.Abubakar signature was not found in the first page of the affidavit. Hence, the act of the petitioner amounts to serious misconduct under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. On receipt of the above show cause notice, the petitioner has filed written objections stating that both Mrs. Mumtaj Begum and Mr. Abubakar, appeared before him and put their signatures in his presence and in the first page of the affidavit the signature of the Mr. Abubakar was not found, the said mistake was crept in inadvertently.

(2.) After receipt of the above reply, not being satisfied with the same, the respondent ordered for an inquiry by the competent authority namely, the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. In the enquiry, Mrs. Mumtaj Begum was examined and during the enquiry, she deposed that she and her husband went to the Advocate Office for attestation of affidavit for the purpose of getting passport and both of them put their signatures in the presence of Notary. But the learned Principal District Judge without considering statement made by the deponents, has filed his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, on receipt of the above report, the respondent now passed the order suspending his certificate of practise as Notary for a period of 18 months in G.O.Ms. No. 206, Law (Administration) Department, dated 26.06.2015 which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that based on a complaint filed by the Passport Officer, Tiruchirapalli alleging that the affidavit did not bear the signature of the deponent, and a Notary is supposed to see the applicant and obtain the signature on the stamp paper in his presence and the Notary has to certify in the notarial certificate that he has seen the applicant and the applicant has signed before him. On receipt of the above complaint, written statement of defence was called for from the petitioner under Rule 13 (5) of the Notaries Rules, 1956. On considering the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner, the respondent satisfied that a prima facie case was made out to initiate action against the petitioner and hence, an inquiry was ordered against the petitioner under Rule 13 (6) of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai District, was requested to conduct an inquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner through the Registrar General, High Court, Madras who in turn conducted inquiry and sent his report on 25.11.2014. The relevant portion of the report reads as follows:-