JUDGMENT :

(Prayers: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.28799/A2/2013 dated 05.04.2019 as confirmed on appeal by the 1st respondent in G.O(D) No.242 Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 21.12.2020 and quash both the orders.)

The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Registration Department in 1985 as Junior Assistant and later, was promoted as Assistant in 1995 and as Sub-Registrar Grade II in February 2011. The petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum dated 19.06.2013 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The allegation in the charge memorandum is that while he was working as Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai, in respect of the two documents he did not accept the guideline value and referred the document under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. There are other allegations that he has registered one document based on the guideline value and returned the document to the concerned buyer and registered one other document, but not returned the document to the buyer nor referred the same under Section 47A(1). According to the charge memorandum, there was a ulterior motive in not returning the documents.

2. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 23.10.2013 refuting the charges. According to him, there are two documents which were referred to under Section 47A(1) were stated to be undervalued and there was nothing wrong with the procedure adopted by the petitioner in referring the matter to the higher authorities for valuation of the stamp duty payable on the document. The action of referring the document was only intended to maximise the revenue to be generated from the registration and that cannot be the basis of the charges against him.

3. An enquiry was held notwithstanding the explanation offered by the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 18.11.2014 held that the charges were not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority, the second respondent, nearly after 3 ½ years vide memo dated 20.04.2018 proposed to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to the transaction pertaining to two documents by finding that the petitioner-s action were inconsistent. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 18.12.2018 and 22.01.2019 pointing out that there was absolutely no basis for disagreement as the Enquiry Officer had considered all the materials placed on record and rendered comprehensive finding holding that the charges were not proved in the enquiry.

4. The second respondent, finally by order dated 05.04.2019, imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 13.06.2019 to the first respondent and the appeal was disposed of vide G.O.Ms.No.242, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 21.12.2020 rejecting the appeal by confirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The present writ petition is filed against the punishment order, as confirmed in appeal by the first respondent.

5. The learned counsel Mr.V.Vijay Shankar appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are several infirmities in the orders passed by both the respondents. According to him, the reference of documents under Section 47A(1) of Indian Stamp Act cannot be the basis for framing the charges at all. In fact, the learned counsel has taken this Court through the explanation given by the writ petitioner in respect of the four transactions which formed the basis of the charge memorandum. All the four transactions have been satisfactorily explained and properly presented by the petitioner to the second respondent Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, the learned counsel also contended that the Enquiry Officer, after taking into consideration all the materials that were made available in the enquiry, had found that the ch