G.P.GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally filed as O.A. No.219/2001 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question the order dated 01.12.2000 by which a penalty of recovery of Rs.51,007/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner is ordered. After closer of the Tribunal, the petition has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise of filing this petition are that the petitioner, who was working as Sub Registrar in the Registration Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh, was charge-sheeted for alleged misconduct vide charge-sheet dated 26.12.1997. In all 9 charges were levelled against the petitioner stating that by not charging the stamp duty rightly on the document to be registered, monetary loss was caused to the State Government. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet and a direction was given to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Since the petitioner has superannuated from service in the meantime, a request was made by the petitioner that the enquiry may be conducted at Katni looking to his ill-health. Such a prayer was earlier considered. The enquiry was being conducted at Katni. However, since certain reports were submitted by the persons, who were to be examined as witnesses in the enquiry relating to apprehension in their mine that they will put to dire consequences in case they appear in the enquiry at Katni, the direction was given to conduct the enquiry at Maihar. The petitioner could not appear in the enquiry as his request for change of place was not considered and ultimately a report was drawn and sent to the competent authority. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of three charges namely Charges No.1, 2 and 5. So far as other charges are concerned, in the enquiry report the petitioner was completely exonerated. Accepting the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner of which the reply was submitted by him. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued the order impugned on 01.12.2000 imposing the penalty aforesaid.

(3.) The main contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that with respect to the allegations made in Charge No.2, the document placed by Maihar Cement Company was not earlier registered as it was said that proper registration fees and stamp duty is not paid. Against such an action of Collector of Stamps, an appeal was preferred by the said Maihar Cement Company before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, which was allowed on 05.10.2000 categorically holding that the valuation done by the company was correct and according to that the stamp duty and registration fees was to be paid. This order passed in appeal was well within the knowledge of the Collector of Stamps as this document was subsequently registered and, therefore, the findings recorded in respect of Charge No.2 were incorrect. As far as Charge No.5 is concerned, it is said that the document registered on 27.08.1997 was valued on the basis of the guidelines prescribed and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to dispute the valuation put in the document. The registration of the said document was done on the payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration fees. As far as Charge No.1 is concerned, it is stated that the house said to be transferred by the said document was only a residential house and it was not classified as a nonresidential accommodation, therefore, the valuation of the document was done treating it a document of transfer of residential building. There was no occasion for the petitioner to dispute the same. It is contended that these facts though were pointed out by the petitioner, were never looked into by the Disciplinary Authority and illegally the order of punishment was issued.