The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on initiating disciplinary proceedings based on errors in exercising quasi-judicial powers, emphasizing the need for a fair and reasonable process and the requirement for a quasi-judicial determination of proper stamp duty payable on an instrument.

By consent the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. Since, the petitioner in all the three writ petitions is the same person and the issue involved in all the three writ petitions raised a common question, they are disposed of by a common order.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition No.14682/2009 is to quash the charge memo issued to the petitioner dated 110. 2004. W.P.No.12044/2004 has been filed to quash the charge memo dated 30.01.2004 and W.P.No.20807/2008 was filed challenging the charge memo dated 21.09.2006.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition could be briefly set down as hereunder. While, the petitioner was functioning as Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Coimbatore, the charge memo dated 110. 2004 came to be issued containing two sets of charged. Both the charges related to a release deed presented for registration before the Joint Sub Registrar II Central Madras, in document No.561/2001 dated 20.06.2001 and the allegation in the first charge was that such document ought to have been treated as conveyance and the appropriate Stamp Duty to be collected is 13% and this has been pointed out in the audit report dated 19.02.2003 and such audit report was approved by the Inspector General of Registration and that the petitioner being the District Registrar (Administration) at Chennai during the relevant time ought to have exercised the powers under Section 33 (A) of the India Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to "as the Act") and failure to do so is in violation of Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules. The second article of charge also pertains to the same allegation by stating that on account of the petitioner, that has been loss of Stamp Duty to the extent of Rs.2,97,810/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge on 02.02.2005. The petitioners explanation being that he joined as Assistant Inspector General of Registration central Chennai on 31.07.2002, held additional charge of Audit Department between 12. 2002 to 06.06.2004 and the said document No.561/2001 was presented for registration on 20.06.2001 and on that date, he was not holding charge and the concerned Sub-Registrar found that the document was a release deed between blood brothers and also Co-owners of an ancestral property and the releasor released his Co-parcenery right of un-divided share in favour of the other Co-parcener and therefore the concerned Sub-Registrar treated the transaction under Article 55(A) as a release deed and not as a deed of conveyance as contemplated under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, it was contended that the question of taking action under Section 33-A does not arise.

.4. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and a report was submitted on 08.06.2005 holding that the petitioner failed to invoke the power under Section 33-A Indian Stamp Act. The allegation in the charge memo, which is impugned in W.P.No.12044/2009 pertains to an allegation that during his tenure as District Registrar, Vellore from 31.03.1997 to 31.07.2002, he has inspected several buildings and during the year 2001 in respect of 10 documents, which were registered before the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi, it was alleged that the petitioner had calculated the value of the building at a lower rate and therefore, the same has caused loss to the Government. The petitioner is stated to have promptly submitted his reply to the charge memo and an enquiry officer was appointed, who in turn directed a sub-enquiry officer to submit a report and based on such report came to a conclusion that the charges are proved. In fact the case of the petitioner itself is based on a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration dated 14.06.2004, which is to the effect that re-inspection of buildings has to be completed within a period of three months, but in the instant case, the sub-enquiry officer re-inspected the buildings without notice to the petitioner after a period of nea