A DHANASEKARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the year 2003, the petitioner was the Sub Registrar of Central Chennai Sub Registration District, at Periyamedu. One Amirthavalli, W/o. Gopalakrishnan executed a release deed in favour of one Anitha Rani, thereby releasing all her title and right in respect of undivided half share in the property. The said document was presented before the petitioner for registration. Accepting that the said document is only in the nature of the release deed, the petitioner collected stamp duty and registration charges and registered the said document. Subsequently, during audit conducted by the District Registrar, the District Registrar claimed that the document is in the nature of a settlement deed for which stamp duty should have been collected under Article 58(a)(ii) of the Stamp Act. According to the District Registrar, a sum of Rs.1,56,400/- should have been collected as stamp duty, besides Rs.10,000/- as additional registration charge. Thus a sum of Rs.1,66,400/- was caused as loss to the Government is the allegation.

(2.) ON the above allegation, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner levelling as many as two charges. The petitioner denied the allegations. The defence taken by him was that the document is only a release deed and it can never be categorized as a settlement deed. Thus according to him, the stamp duty collected and the registration charges collected were all perfectly in accordance with law. Not satisfying with the said explanation, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges not proved. But the disciplinary authority, namely, the first respondent was not satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent deviated from the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Therefore a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit further explanation regarding the said finding of the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted further explanation. Finally rejecting all such explanations offered by the petitioner, the first respondent held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1 alone and issued G.O.Ms.2D.No.35, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 29.02.2008 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the document can never be categorized as a settlement deed at all because what was conveyed was the undivided half share of the property in favour of other sharer. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the document cannot be termed as the release deed, but instead the same should be treated only as settlement deed, for which the stamp duty should be collected under article 58(a)(ii) of the Act.