A document purporting to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property does not require registration merely because it contains a recital of the payment of earnest money or the whole or any part of the purchase money.

R.S.Mongia, J.

1. The petitioner had joined the Revenue Department in the State of Punjab as Tehsildar on 16th April, 1981- His name had been recommended by the Commissioner of Jullundur Division for consideration by the Financial Commissioner for being brought on the Register A-1 under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services, Executive Branch, Class 1 Rules 1976 for ultimate appointment to the P. C. S Executive Branch. The Financial Commissioner, however, did not forward the rolls of the petitioner to the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) on the alleged ground that there was a departmental enquiry pending against him. This led the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The prayer which has been made in the petition is that the charge-sheet Annexure P-2, of the writ petition be quashed and respondents be directed to forward the name of the petitioner to the PPSC for inclusion in the list of the nominees under Register A-1, for ultimate appointment to the P. C. S. Executive Branch from that Register. In pursuance of the order of the Motion Bench, one vacancy has been kept reserved in the category of the petitioner i.e. Register A-1.

2. The allegations in the charge-sheet on the basis of which the enquiry is being held against the petitioner are as follows:-

"When Shri Sohan Lal Bhumbak, was as Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana, he registered an agreement to sale and possession letter though it did not have the necessary stamp fees affixed on it. In this connection, the Accountant General (Audit), Punjab, vide his letter No. R. A. 1/S. R./S.D./89-90/T.D.A. 4/652-57, dated 8.6.90, sent a tentative draft regarding wrong classification of instruments for including in the year 1989-90 Audit Report. It was commented by the Accountant General (Audit), Punjab, that in accordance with the clarification given in Punjab Government instruction No. S.T. 4-61, 7122, dated 28.7.61, such a document which contained all the essential ingredients of conveyance, will be a sale, on which stamp and registeration fee have to be paid. The agreement to sale-cum-possession letter, which was registered by Shri Bhumbak without any stamp or registration fee, had all the essential ingredients of conveyance. Besides this, full payment of Rs. 19,16,712.20 of the agreement had been made. Thus by contravening the Government instructions, Shri Bhumbak caused a loss of Rs. 2,41 lacs to the Government, in the shape of stamp fees.

2. When full payment of the amount of the agreement had been made, you made the following alteration in para 3 of the agreement, in connivance with the concerned parties: "Balance is to be paid at the time of execution of sale/ transfer."

By doing so, you have made an unsuccessful attempt to show that the concerned party had to make some payment as yet.

3. This action of his shows that he has done this for his personal interest/greed with malafide intentions and in connivance with the party and he has made himself liable for action under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970."

3. It has been averred in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners name was not recommended by the Financial Commissioner Revenue for nomination to P.C.S. Executive Branch due to the pending disciplinary proceedings against him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute on facts in this case and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the document which was presented before the petitioner really did not require any registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 then the question of the petitioner being guilty of any of the alleged charges would not arise. He submitted that this Court should decide this law point and if the decision is in his favour, then nothing remains in the charge-sheet and respondents should not in that eventuality be allowed to proceed further.

5. I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting