The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the government to form an independent opinion on the professional or other misconduct of a notary public before imposing any punishment, and the importance of following the principles of natural justice in conducting enquiries and passing orders based on enquiry reports.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent vide his proceedings in G.O(Ms).No.236 Law (Administration) Department, dated 02.08.2021 and quash the same and consequently restore the petitioner's name as Notary in Dindigul District in Register of Notaries maintained by the Government.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the respondent herein under which the petitioner's name was removed from the register of notaries.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a practising Advocate in Dindigul and he is a notary public from the year 1993 onwards approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has further contended that in the year 2012, 11 applicants had approached him to get notary attested in their affidavits for their passport applications. After verifying the identification of each one of the individuals, he had attested their affidavits. Thereafter, an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation revealed that the residential address mentioned in the affidavit of those 11 applicants are fictitious in nature and he was charged in criminal proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai on the allegation that he had attested bogus affidavits. His discharge application in Crl.M.P(MD).No.400 of 2013 was dismissed by the trial Court on 05.03.2014. Hence, he failed Crl.R.C(MD).No. 222 of 2014 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 27.07.2014 had allowed the revision and discharged the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, the C.B.I. has lodged a complaint to the respondent on 17.01.2012 to initiate action against him. Hence, the respondent had issued a charge memo on 10.12.2012. Not being satisfied with the written submission, the respondent herein referred the matter for an enquiry to the learned District Judge, Dindigul by their proceedings dated 21.05.2013. The petitioner had further contended that the learned District Judge after recording the oral evidence had submitted a report to the Government on 04.09.2018. On the basis of the said report, the respondent has passed the impugned order on 02.08.2021 cancelling the certificate of practice and perpetually debarring him from functioning as a notary. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that as per Rule 13(1) of Notaries Act, 1952, the respondent is at liberty to initiate suo motu proceedings into the allegation of professional or other misconduct of a notary or on an inquiry or on a complaint received in Form XIII. In the present case, the Central Bureau of Investigation has sent a letter to the respondent requesting them to initiate an enquiry. The said letter is not in the statutory form of Form XIII. In such an event, the respondent authority ought to have returned the complaint as contemplated under Rule 13(3) of Notaries Rules, 1956. The respondent ought not to have proceeded further and issued a charge memo to the writ petitioner based upon this complaint which is not in statutory form.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the learned Principal District Judge who is the competent authority while conducting an enquiry has not examined those 11 applicants, who got false notaries by the petitioner. Only when they are examined, whether the documents produced by those applicants in support of their names and their addresses were bogus or not will come to light. The learned counsel had further contended that though the Central Bureau of Investigation had sought permission from the respondent to prosecute me, the respondent has not granted any sanction. Only because of the said fact, the petitioner was discharged in the criminal proceedings. When the respondent has not found any material