O R D E R

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.02.2015 passed in Application No.2866/2006 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. The petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar in the respondent No.2 Department. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2002. Prior to three weeks of his retirement, he was issued with a show-cause notice (Articles of Charges) alleging that he undervalued 28 documents in respect of registration of immovable properties during the year 1995-96 and thereby violated the instructions given by his higher authorities.

3. On the instructions of the Enquiring Authority, the District Registrar, Chikkamagaluru, by his report dated 11.06.2004 reported that the petitioner has not undervalued any of the properties and therefore the allegations made against him may be dropped. Again on 20.07.2004, the District Registrar, Chikkamagaluru, has submitted one more report specifically listing out the cases in respect of which disciplinary action against the petitioner were to be dropped and the cases in which recovery action were to be taken under the Karnataka Stamps and Registration Act, 1957 (‘Act’ for short). The Enquiring Authority has held that the chares against the petitioner are proved in respect of 17 cases. Respondent No.2 accepted the findings of the Enquiring Authority and issued second show-cause notice. A reply was given by the petitioner submitting that there was no loss caused to the Government and no instructions were violated by the petitioner as alleged; insertion of Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamps and Registration Act is subsequent to registration of the 17 cases and therefore provisions of Section 45B cannot be made applicable to the instant case. Respondent No.1 considering the same has proceeded to issue the order for recovery of the alleged loss to the Government from DCRG and to withhold 1/3rd pension of the petitioner permanently. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.2866/2006 which came to be dismissed.

Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the recommendations made by the District Registrar, Chikkamagalur and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiring Authority was not properly appreciated by the respondent No.1. The order of the disciplinary authority for recovery of the amounts in the alleged under valued cases without verifying as to what are the said 17 cases and initiating recovery proceedings is unreasonable. The Tribunal has failed to notice that the disciplinary authority had mechanically accepted the findings of the enquiring authority sans clarity on the 17 cases. It was submitted that prior to 01.04.2003, there was no provision for notifying the estimation, publication and revision of market value to determine the guideline value of the properties. Section 45B was inserted in the Karnataka Stamps and Registration Act, 1957 with effect from 01.04.2003, hence, cannot be made applicable to the alleged 17 cases, where undervaluation was done by the petitioner, for determination of the alleged loss to the Government. Without considering the same, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the order of recovery of Rs.3,17,950/- from DCRG and the balance amount from pension as arrears of land revenue, which is untenable and illegal.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State justifying the impugned order submitted that the 17 cases against which the undervaluation was said to have been proved was clearly mentioned in the enquiry report. If any typographical error has crept in, in mentioning the number of the documents on which the action was to be taken under Section 46A of the Act, the same would not be fatal and the same cannot vitiate the proceedings. The Tribunal having appreciated the material on record has rightly rejected the application confirming the order of the di