HARDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of his suspension order passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he has excellent record of service. In June, 1988, he was posted as Tehsildar, Ropar. He was also acting as Sub-Registrar under the provisions of Indian Registration Act while performing the duties of Tehsildar. The respondent No. 2 issued instructions as contained in letter dated December 29, 1988 directing the Sub-Registrars not to register sale deeds below the price determined in the statement appended to the letter. The prices were determined on the recommendation of the Chandra Committee Report. The petitioner claimed that the alleged instructions are void abinitio being contrary to the statutory provisions of Sections, 21, 23, 27, 32 and 34 of the Indian Registration Act and of the statutory provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. In his capacity as Sub-Registrar, he was not required to re-assess the value of the property and direct the executants to pay the stamp duty according to the valuation determined by him.

(3.) Written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Respondent No. 1 maintained that the petitioner had caused loss to the Government by registering sale deeds at the rate less than the rate approved by the Board. The petitioner was suspended keeping in view the serious nature of the charge.