The Sub-Registrar has a duty to verify General Power of Attorney documents before registration; failure to do so constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

CAV ORDER :

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 19.08.2021 in Application No.8653/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect and withholding of promotion for a period of four years from the date of becoming eligible for promotion is rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar, BTM Layout, Jayanagar, Bengaluru during the relevant period. On the allegation that the petitioner colluded with one Sri.Dharanendraiah and has allegedly registered a cancellation deed of a Joint Development Agreement (for short, ‘JDA’) on the basis of the General Power of Attorney (for short, ‘GPA’) said to have been executed by one Smt.Sujatha Jinesh without verifying or without obtaining the original of the GPA, a departmental enquiry was initiated by issuance of articles of charge dated 06.09.2016. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer of the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted its report dated 30.01.2018 which was forwarded by the Upa-Lokayukta to the respondent-State Government along with re-commendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 03.02.2018 wherein the recommendation was made to withhold four annual increments with cumulative effect and also to defer promotion wherever she becomes eligible for promotion. The petitioner was issued second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The petitioner replied to the second show cause notice on 30.05.2018. Thereafter, considering the entire material on record, the first respondent-Disciplinary Authority by order dated 10.08.2018, imposed punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect and deferring promotion for a period of four years from the date the petitioner becomes eligible for promotion in exercise of power under Rule 8(iii) and 8(iiia) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘1957 Rules’) for the proved misconduct.

3. Questioning the said order of penalty, petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.8653/2018 inter alia mainly contending that when the executant of the document admitted the execution, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to register the document and that the Sub-Registrar is not concerned with the GPA said to have been executed in favour of the executant. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner and consequently rejected the challenge to the order of penalty. Questioning the rejection of Application under impugned order as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli for Sri.Yeshu Baba R. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for the respondent-State. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli would submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is opposed to the material on record and that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the role of Sub-Registrar in registration of a document. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner registered the cancellation deed of JDA presented in the absence of the executant. Learned senior counsel would submit that the allegation is that the cancellation of JDA was by Sri.Dharanendraiah and by one Smt.Sujatha Jinesh who is said to have executed GPA in favour of Sri.Dharanendraiah and while registering the cancellation of JDA, the petitioner colluded with Sri.Dharanendraiah by accepting bribe of Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence for alleged acceptance of Rs.50,000/- for registration of cancellation deed. In the absence of any evidence on record, learned senior counsel would submit t