The main legal point established in the judgment is that no charge can be framed against a quasi-judicial authority unless there is evidence of culpable negligence or ill-motive.

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.

2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 20.8.2005, passed by the first respondent herein.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

.(a) Petitioner started his service in the Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1972; got promoted as Assistant in the year 1975; further promoted as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1984; as Tahsildar in the year 1993; as Deputy Collector in the year 1998; and as District Revenue Officer in the year 2001. When the writ petition was

.filed, he was serving at the Principal Civil Services Training Institute, Bavanisagar. He has put in totally 34 years of service.

.(b) When the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector, he was posted as Additional Special Deputy Collector and at that time, the Sub Registrar, Arakkonam referred Document No.70 of 1998 under section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. On receipt of the reference, petitioner took action as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation Instruments) Rules, 1968. On perusal of the document and inspection of the property and after considering the representation, petitioner determined the market value of the property and fixed the value at Rs.22 per sq.ft. under section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act. The said value was fixed considering the market value prevailing then, even though the nomenclature of the land was shown as agriculture. The petitioner discharged his duties as a Quasi Judicial Authority and fixed the market value in terms of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.

.(c) On 20.8.2005, petitioner received a charge memo, framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that a loss of revenue to the Government to the tune of Rs.2,12,187/-was sustained since the petitioner failed to value the true market value by making local enquiry and arbitrarily fixed the value at Rs.22/- per sq.ft. and thereby petitioner contravened the Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.

.(d) According to the petitioner, he having exercised his powers as contemplated under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, as a Quasi Judicial Authority, if anybody is aggrieved, the proper remedy is to file an appeal against the said order as contemplated under the Act before the Inspector General of Registration and no misconduct for the alleged violation of the Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, is attracted. Petitioner sent a reply to the said charge memo on 211. 2005 and stated that he has followed Rule 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, and also inspected the property, received representation from the party and also verified the sales took place in the nearby lands within the vicinity and thereafter fixed the market value.

.(e) One of the document referred to the petitioner was Document No.70 of 1998 of Joint Sub Registrar Officer, Arakkonam, through which an extent of 1.04 acre of land comprised in T.S.Nos.25, 30, 32, 33 and 34 of Block-6, Ward- D of Arakkonam Municipality, Ammanur Village of Arakkonam Taluk, had been sold. Immediately on receipt of the documents from the Sub Registrar, he inspected the lands on 12. 1998 and after holding enquiry, he fixed the said market value. In fact, an award was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, in respect of lands under acquisition comprised in T.S.No.30/2, Block-4, Ward-D at the rate of Rs.16.06 per sq.ft. and while passing the award the Revenue Divisional Officer relied on the sales transaction took place on 13. 1997 in document No.131/1997, Joint Registrar-II, Arakkonam.

.(f) Even though enquiry was concluded with regard to the said charge memo on 4. 2006, a copy of the report was not given to the petitioner and after a request made, i