Kailash Chandra Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

S.C. Sharma, J.—The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the punishment order dt. 17/2/05 (Annexure P/5) and the order rejecting his appeal dt. 9/8/07. Petitioner is a retired Government servant and has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the present Writ Petition.

Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner while he was working as a Sub-Registrar under the Commercial Tax Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a charge sheet was issued on 7/8/97. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner. Charge No. 1 was in respect of registering undervalued documents. Charge No. 2 was in respect of not marking proper pages in the field book and the charge No. 3 was regarding registering three documents in respect of which the petitioner was not having jurisdiction, meaning thereby, those documents were required to be registered by some other Registrar. Enquiry Officer has conducted the Departmental Enquiry and has held Charge Nos. 1 and 3 as proved. Thereafter, Show Cause Notice was issued by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner did submit a reply. The disciplinary authority has later on imposed a punishment of stoppage of 3 annual increments without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1,42,008/- has also been ordered. Appeal against the aforesaid order of punishment has also been dismissed on 9/8/2007. In the present case, contention of the petitioner is that the documents which are allegedly said to be undervalued, were not at all undervalued. His further contention is that the guidelines framed by the Collector do not have statutory force and the guidelines framed by the Collector have been quashed by the Division Bench this Court in the case of Bala Prasad and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, AIR 1997 MP 218 : (1997) 1 JLJ 138 : (1997) 2 MPLJ 636 . It has also been stated that in the same case, the constitutional validity of M.P. Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1975 was considered and the aforesaid Rules have been held to be ultra vires. It has been informed that the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court was confirmed by the apex Court in SLP ie., SLP No. 779/1997 which was dismissed on 27/1/1997. Learned senior counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the guidelines which do not have legal force and the same were erroneously relied upon by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. He has also argued before this Court that the documents in respect of which allegation was made that they have been undervalued and registered, in 17 cases the Collector of Stamps has held them to be properly valued, in 15 cases the Stamp Duty amounting to Rs.36,271/- was recovered from the purchasers who have executed the documents, meaning thereby, the loss, if any, was recovered from the purchaser subsequently in respect of some other cases. Learned senior counsel has argued before this Court that in identical circumstances, one Rukmini Sharma was also inflicted with a punishment who was facing similar charges and the order of punishment dt. 21/6/2005 was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1375 / 2005 (s) vide order dt. 7/9/2005. The matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority has finally set aside the order of punishment by order dt. 14/11/2015, meaning thereby, in case of an identically placed person who was also charge sheeted for not following the guidelines framed by the Collector, has been exonerated and Departmental Enquiry has been closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards another case of Mr. Raghvendra who was also punished initially and later on Departmental Enquiry was closed in similar circumstances. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, the guidelines cannot be made the basis for punishing the petitioner.

In respect of charge No. 3, it has been stated that the person who was required to register the documents was on leave and in those circumstances three documents were registered the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner was rightly charge sheeted for committing misconduct and based upon the guidelines framed by the Collector and the Rules of 1975, as the documents were undervalued, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority has rightly inflicted order of punishment. He has also argued before this Court that the respondents have followed the principles of natural justice and fair play and, therefore, in absence of procedural irregularity, the question of interference by this Court, does not arise.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bala Prasad (supra) has declared the Rules known as M.P. Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rules, 1975 as ultra vires. Not only this, in similar circumstances, in the case of Rukmini, this Court while passing the order on 7/9/2005, in Writ Petition No. 1375 / 2005 (s) has remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order and the disciplinary authority, keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Bala Prasad (supra), has set aside the Departmental Enquiry. Case of the petitioner stands on identical footing. He has been charge sheeted and punished only for violating the guidelines framed by the Collector and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived at by the authorities are certainly perverse findings as the guidelines could not have been made the basis for valuing the document, as has been done by the Department for the purpose of initiating Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner.

The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Bala Prasad (supra) has held as under :

Section 75 of the Stamp Act grants power to the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act. The purpose for which the Rule 3-A appears to have been framed, is to further the purpose and object of Section 47A and, thus, we have to see whether Rule 3-A harmonises with the purpose of Section 47-A to further its object or it impedes or curtails or abridges the power granted by the said Section to the registering authority. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A leaves us in no manner of doubt that the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument has himself to have reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been duly acted forth in the Instrument. It is, thus, his assessment which should lead him to the belief about under-valuation. Rule 3-A, however, circumscribes this discretion and leaves no choice with the Registering Officer except to refer the Instrument to the Collector for determination of the actual market value, if the value stated in the Instrument is less than the minimum value prescribed and prepared under Rule 3-A of the said Rules, even though in his better judgment he may, otherwise, find it to have been properly valued.

It is, therefore, manifest that the Rule has the effect of abrogating the power of Registering Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A to draw his own conclusions and bere of this power, he is required to refer the document for determination of the market value even though, in a given case, he, in his own discretion, may not find it undervalued. It is clear that instead of supplementing the provisions of Section 47- A, the Rule curtails the powers; indeed abrogates it. The Rule therefore, is ultra vires the power granted by Section 75 of the Stamp Act and cannot stand together with Section 47-A thereof. The Registering Officer is a statutory functionary under the Act and his function cannot be taken away, abrogated or curtailed by a subordinate legislation.

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in punishing the petitioner on the basis of guidelines and on the basis of the Rules of 1975, is certainly bad in law and, therefore, the order of punishment dt. 17/02/2005 and the order passed by the appellate authority dt. 09/08/2007 are hereby set aside.

The petitioner during the pendency of the present Writ Petition has attained the age of superannuation on 30/11/2013, as this Court has set aside the order of punishment of stoppage of three increments, the respondents are directed to revise the pay fixation keeping in view the order passed by this Court and the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion / kramonnati, if any, flowing out of this order. It is also pertinent to note that this Court has stayed the recovery and, therefore, as a consequence of the aforesaid order, the recovery is also quashed. The respondents are further directed to release all terminal dues of the petitioner and to finalise the pension case of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.