1. Petitioner while serving as Sub-Registrar in District Shivpuri in the year 2005 was incharge of registration of various nature of documents including mining leases and calculation of stamp duty under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act. Thirteen mining leases were registered under his orders. Upon scrutiny of instruments by the audit party during the course of audit, it was pointed out that substantially less stamp duty as well as registration fee has been charged on each instruments causing revenue loss to the extent of Rs.6,66,235/-. As a result, petitioner is served with the charge sheet under rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1966'). The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is found to be misconduct within the meaning of rules 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The charge sheet is under challenge before this Court on the grounds that :

(i) There is no malice attributed to the petitioner and, therefore, even if less stamp duty and registration fee has been charged, the same shall not tantamount to misconduct making petitioner liable for departmental enquiry under the present charge sheet in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and others [AIR 1999 SC 2881].

(ii) Even otherwise on merits also charge is framed on misconception of law as where rent is fixed in a mining lease, the stamp duty payable is only as per Article 35 (a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1899') and, therefore, only annual rent could be the basis for stamp duty and registration fee. The allegation that the stamp duty and registration fee should have been charged on the entire value of the premium/rent is incorrect.

(iii) Though similar charges were framed against one Mr. R.S. Shakya, but he has been let off with the penalty of withholding of one increment, whereas petitioner is subjected to charge sheet issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. In any case, persons aggrieved due to demand of additional stamp duty and registration fee on the instruments in question have already filed writ petitions before this Court and the writ petitions are pending consideration, though the amount has been recovered from most of those respective lessees.

2. Per contra, Shri Newaskar, learned Government Advocate, has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that undisputedly the charge sheet has been issued by a competent authority. Charges are specific in nature supported by imputation of charges and documents. Under these circumstances, as law is well settled, no writ petition lies seeking quashment of charge or show-cause notice for the reason that there is no infringement of right of the petitioner and the cause of action for imputing upon the allegations and action based thereupon arises only when penalty is imposed upon the delinquent or the proceedings otherwise affected future prospects of the petitioner by an order. Therefore, at this stage, petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006)12 SCC 28], to bolster his submission and further contended that this Court may invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the charge sheet issued is without jurisdiction or is ex facie illegal or does not constitute a charge, but such situation arises only in exceptional cases and not in routine manner. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant case thirteen mining leases have been registered with less stamp duty and registration fee. There is a loss of Rs.6,66,235/- to the State exchequer, as evident from the charge sheet. It is a case of dereliction of duty and negligence. Therefore, the charges, so framed, are required to be inquire