Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to correcting procedural errors, and findings can only be overturned if manifest injustice or violations of natural justice are proven.

CAV ORDER :

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

The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 28.02.2020 in Application Nos.1786 & 2201 of 2020 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 also withholding of promotion for a period of four years from the date she became eligible for promotion, is rejected.

2. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the above lis are that, on the complaint of one Sri.Puttanaiah, investigation was taken up by the second respondent and after investigation, the second respondent submitted a report under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short “1984 Act”). Based on the report submitted under Section 12 (3) of 1984 Act, the first respondent-State Government entrusted enquiry to the second respondent. The second respondent nominated the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and accordingly, the nominated Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 11.09.2018 holding that the Disciplinary Authority has proved the charges. The said enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa Lokayukta dated 14.09.2018 was forwarded to the first respondent-State Government. The first respondent issued second show-cause notice dated 20.10.2018 enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner herein submitted her reply on 22.11.2018. The first respondent-State Government, on consideration of the entire record, under impugned order dated 27.05.2020 imposed punishment as stated above. Questioning the said order of punishment, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, vide impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner as one devoid of merits. Questioning the said order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli for Sri.Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1; Sri.Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri.K.Sathish, learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Caveator. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner grossly undervalued the property and registered the same in favour of one Chandru and that the petitioner registered a sale deed on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney (for short, ‘GPA’) and thereby acted against Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT , which amounted to misconduct in terms of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. However, it is submitted that only charge of undervaluation is held to be proved and charge of registering a document on the basis of unregistered GPA is not proved. He submits that if there is any error in receiving the stamp duty, the same cannot be the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not an authority to determine the stamp duty or to determine whether the adjudication done by the District Registrar is accurate or not. When it is not the duty of the petitioner to adjudicate the stamp value, no charge with regard to undervaluation could be attributed to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would submit that the valuati