K. Ravi Kanth v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P V RAMANA, REP - FOR SRI S. SRTDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24729 of 2o24 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief : - " ..... to issue a Wit or order or direction more particularly one in tle nature of Wit of Certioroi call for tLe reards and set aside the impugned order passed bg tlrc 4tn respondent uide Proceedings No.S/ 195/ 2O27, dated 19.02.2024 declaritg the same a.s illegol, arbitrary and in utolation of principals of natural justice and also Rule 22 of Telangana Ciuil Seruices (Classificatiott' Control attd Appeal) Rules, 1991, ?.S.C.S./CC&A) atrd consequentlg direct tLrc respondents to cottsicler petitioner's name for the future promotions pen'dirtg disposal of tle aboue tait petitiort . . . . . ..".

2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri S.SridLrar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Plead'er for Services-I appearing for the respondents' 2

3. The brief facts of the case are as follovs :_ The petitioner was appointed as Ser:itr Assistant the oflrce of the Assistant Registrir - of Chits, Adilabad, and thereafter he was made Irr harge Sub_ Registrar at the Sub-Registrar Offrce, Mancherial. During the course of his du$r, he har registered numerous documents in accordance with the provisions ol the Registration Act, l9og. rtr-hile so. on the allegation that he has committed ir regularities while perfl<rrming duties before the Chi,:- Vigilance Oftlcer-cum .Joint Secretary to the GoverrLment, the said Chiel \zigilance Ofhcer has forwardr:, I the saicl complaint vide letter dated 2g.0+.2O2I o the l,rd respondent, u,ho in turn vide letter dated O.OS.2O2l directed thc 4Lh respondent to conduct r cletailed enquiry on the said complaint. The 46 respct Ldent, vide lettcr datcd 15.06.2021 , directed the 56 reslron6[gn1 16 veri[.r' alI thc documents registered by him zL r Incharge Sub-Rcgistr:rr, [\r[zn6hsrial, and s,rbmit a re: ort u,.ithin 3 seven days. Pursuant thereto, the Sth respondent vide letter dated 22.06.2021 forwarded the list of documents registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial, from 22.O2.2O2I to 10.03.2021, which are alleged to have been registered by the petitioner in violation of the instructions of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.G2l257 /2019, dated 29.12-2O2O, to the 4'h rcspondent. 3(i) Based on tlle report submitted by the Sth respondent, the 4th respondent has issued a charge memo dated 12.O1.2024 to the petitioner' The pctitioner submitted an explanation on 24'02'2024, stating that he had registered the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and that he had not violated any of the instructions issued by the 2"d respondent, vide Memo No' G2125712019, dated 29.12.2020, and he has verified arll necessary documents before registering and none o[ the documents were notilied under the prohibitory 4 list under Section 22A of the Registratio r Act. The petitioner also stated that, in the process of registration, he might have committed sorrr errors that would not warrant an enquiry against him. After submission of the explanation, the 4ttr reslt tndent vide Proceeding No.S/ 195/202 1 dated 19.O2.2C,.i4, imposed the punishrnent ol stoppage of five arr rual grade increments u,itltout cumulative effect (ne>r increment onwards), under Rule 9 (vi) of T.S.C.S. (1.C. & A), Rules, 199 l Aggrieved thereby, the petitiorr:r has filed the present u rit petition.

4. Learne.cl counscl appearing for the petitioner submits that the linding recorded by th: Enquiry Officer-4th rcspondent that the charged r,fficer has accepted the ch:rrgc as such the case has l c be dealt under Rulc 22 oi T.S.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rur, 199 1 is untenablc and cannot bc sustained for the t.r.ason that the chargc olficcr has never admitted to t . e charges 5 levelled against him. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges leveled against him. A bare reading of the explanation submitted by the petitioner would not reveal that the petitioner has admitted the charges leveled against him. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice-

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner lurther submits that appropriate orders be passed in the n rit petition by setting aside the impugned proccedings dated lg-O2.2O24 and allow the u'rit petition. (). The respondents have frled counter aflidavit statirlg that u,hile the petitioner was working as In- chierge Sub Registrar at the Sub Registrar Olfice' Marrcherial, violated the provisions of Section 172 (16l ol the Telangana Municipality Act, 2019, and Section 6 113 (8) of the Telangana panchayat Raj Act 201g, read with the Commissioner and Inspect<,: GeneraL's Circular Memo No. G2l2S7l2olg, dated 26_0g_2O2O and 29-12-2020, by admitting and regir; ering (647) Documents related to unauthorized and ilt rgal layouts during the period from 22.O2.2O2I to O.O3.2O21, without prior approval from the competen authority. The petitioner misusecl his official capa< ity as the incharge Sub Registrar as mentioned in Letter No. EL / 19 13 I 202 1, Dared: 22.06.2O2t.

7. It is further stated that a complaint r(:i larding the irregularities and corrupt practices of th: petitioner was received from the Governnr:nt vid.e Memo.No.9465/Vig_ I (1). 2o2t_ l, dated , a.o4.2o2I and forwarded the same to the head of the ([ )partment, i.e., the Commissioner and lnspector Gent ral (R&S), Hyderatracl for conductir.rg a derailed inqu : y, who in turn directed the 4,r, respondent to -cnducr. a detailed 1 1nqulry irregularities vide Memo.No.S I 224 I 2021, dated 15.06.2021. It is further stated that the 5th respondent 8. submitted an inquiry report conlirming the irregularities committed by the petitioner while urorking AS Incharge Sub Registrar at Mancherial' Consequently, a Charge Memo under Rule 20 of the Telargana State Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 199 1' petitioner vide Memo.No.S 122412021, dated l2.Ol-2O24, by the 4th issued respondent. g. It is further stated that the Inspector General of Registration atld Stamps issued Circular Memo No.G2l257l2olg, dated' 26.08.2020 and Memo' No.G2 1257 l2ol9, dated 29.12-2020 in consonance with the provisions of Section 172 (16) of the Telangana Municipality Act, 2O19 and Section 1i3 (8) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, allowing 8 registrations of open plots/structures if the present owner acquired them through a valic registered document executed ear:lier. However, it wa s stipulated that no new plot could be registered ur less it had obtained approval from the competent autlt rrity or was located within an authorized layout. Th,: terrn ,New plot' refers to a plot being registered for the lrst time or sold by developers for the first time. The :iarification further stated that there was no restrict on on the registration of plots in authorized lalr ruts, plots regularized under earlier Land RegularL ;ation (LR) Schemes, and buildings/structures cove red under earlier Building permission Schcmes (Bt, i)/Building Regularisation Schemes (BRS). The proh lrition does not extend to the alienation or transler o1 individual propert5r, but only applies to the reg I tration of plots/structures in unauthorisecl lzuotrts or structures. () 1O. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted an explanation on O2.O1.2024 to the Charge Memo.No. 51224/2021, dated 12.01.2024, in which he categorically accepted that he had registered plots in an unauthorised layout without prior permission from the competent authority. Thus, the petitioner acknowledges committing a mistake while acting as In- charge Sub Registrar at Sub Registrar Office, Mancherial by violating the rules and regulations mentioned supra.

11. It is further stated that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is minor, which is commensurate with the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunit5r to submit his explanation, vide Memo.No.S /224 l2o2l, dated 02.12.2023. Since thc petitioner submitted his explanation on O2'Ol 2024, accepting the irregularities, a final shovr'-cause notice was issued to IO the petitioner on L2-O2-2O24, asking as to.vhy a minor punishment of withholding hve increm: nts of pay without cumulative effect under Rule 9 (lV) of the T.S.C.S (C.C & A) Rules, 199 1, should nor re imposed. The petitioner has failed to submit his fina-t defence/explanation despite being altowed rpportunity to defend himself against the charges. The rhow_cause notice was issued on l2-O2-2O24, duly corr plyir-rg with the provisions of Rule 22 (3) of T.S.C.S. ,C.C & A), Rules, 1991.

12. It is further stated that the pet i registered all properties as ,,New plots,. in urrr ioner has ruthorised layouts without any layout approval docume nts issued by the competent authority. Hence, this acr r the provisions of Clause 2 (it No.G2 /257 /2019, dated 29.L2.2O20, issueci ( respondent. Therefore, the final orders ur through Proceeding No. S/l9Sl2O,2t, darr ,n attracts f' Memo b-r. the 2"d re issued rl l9-02- II 2024, imposing a minor punishment of withholding of five increments of pay without cumulative effect under Rule 9 (lV) of the T.S.C.S (C.C. & A) Rules, 1991, in compliance with due procedure o[ law available under Rule 22 (3) of the T.S.C.S (C.C & A) Rules, 1991'

13. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on O2-O|-2O24, stating as follows :- "I haue registerecl the doatments uthich uere already conuerted into plots earlier, and more than hatf of tLrc plots u)ere registered before the instntction issued. The remainit'Lg land cannot be anuerted into N ALA or ntacle into lagouts' It is submitted, thot some ltio[s are snall pieces of land' and I registered tle snrcl plots as smoll plots' Additionallg, some of lhe doc:-tments registered utere based on non-Ag iculttt re land doannents"' Since the petitioner categorically accepted that he registered the plots in unauthorised layouts without prior permission lrom the competent authority' it is t2 evident that the petitioner has committed i mistake by violating the relevant rules and regulation:; L4. It is further stated that the Hon,ll Court of India in Director General RpF I Babu in Civil Appeal No.4622/2OOO

29.O1.2OO3 held that unless the punishmr b-y the disciplinary authority is disproportionate, it should not be distr-ri- High Court/Tribunals. The plea taken by tlr that he has not violated any provisi,r Registration Act is conceptually inconceiv:r; thc petitioner instead of availing the appeal him to the next higher authorit-v i.e., Ccr ancl lnspector Genera] (R&S), Hyderabad r 33 (1) (ii) of (C.C & A) Rules, 199i if he is a r thc minor punishment imposed by the authoritv under Rule 9 or l0 of (C.C.& A), Rr has approached this Court invoking r:xr e Supreme '/ s Ch. Sai lecided on nt imposed shockingly red lt-y thc : petitioner ls of the c and that Lvailzrbkr to rmrssioner ncler- Ru [e gricvcd b_y isciplinan' les, 199 1, ':rordina11 J jurisdiction of Article 226 of Constitution of India' which is unwarranted on the facts of the case' Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed without granting anY relief as prayed for bY the petitioner.

15. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents, after hearing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner' rightly irnposed the punishment o[ stoppage of frve annual grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards), under Rulc 9 (vi) of T'S'C'S' (C.C. & A), Rules, 1991' Thercfore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that in the instant case, the Petitioner himselt admitted that he I4 I has registered plots in an unauthorised lar out without prlor permlssion from the competent aull:ority. Once the petitioner himself acknowledged h : mistakes, setting aside the entire penalty cannot br: zrcceptable. In the present case, while imposing the pe rLalty.on the petitioner, the question that arises is .a hether the enquiry was conducted or not.

17. Learned Government pleader appea- ng for the respondents stated that the Hon,ble Suprer India in Director General RpF Vs. Ch.S:; Civil Appeal No.4622 of 2O0O decided on held that unless the punishment impor; disciplinarv authority is shockingly dispropc re Court of Li Babu in

19.o r.20c3 rd bv the rtior-ratc, it should not be disturbed by High Court/Tr. bunals. In the present case, without conducting propor. :r-rc1u ir_r' as per Rules, imposing penalty of hve incremcr (s u'ithourt crtmulative effect is shockingly disproporr i rnate, but 15 the authorities have wrongly imposed the penalty, which is incorrect according to the Rules'

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot impose the penalty of five annua,l grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards). The main contention of the petitioner is that wherever the minor penalty ol more than three annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed, the authorities have to conduct the enquiry. Without doing so, the authorities imposed a penatty of hve annual grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards), which is illegal, arbiti'ary and disproportionate' In support of his contentions, he relied upon Rule 22 of Tetangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199 1. t6

19. Rule 22 deals with the procedure l, rr imposing minor penalties. Rule 22 (2) reads as follort s :- "(2) N otu_tithstanding angthing conto clause (b) of sub-rule (l), if in a case it is prr after considering representation, if any, made Gouenunent under clause (a) of that sub .t tuithhold incrernents of pag and. such uithhot increments is likely to affect ad.uerselg tLe ant pensiort payable to the Gouernment seruan tuithhold increments of pag for a peiod est three gears, an enquiry shatt be hetd. in the r laid dou,rL in the sub-rules [(3) to (18) of I\ before making anA order imposing o gouenltnent seruant ang such penaltg." ned. in posed, bg the e, to ling of >unt of or to .,eding LAnner le 2O, L the

20. In vieu' of the above mentioned Rule, this Court is of the considerecl view that the authoriti<: ; must and should conduct a tult and hnal enquiry r gainst the petitioner. Without doing so, imp lsing the punishment of live annual grade incremer ts without cumulative ellect is improper, inccr rect and disproporlionate and, therefore, the same is iable to be modified. T7

21. Therefore, the punishment of imposition of hve alnual grade increments without cumulative effect vide proceedings dated L9.O2.2O24, is modified to that of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. D/. A,H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER l.ThePrincipalsecretary,StampsandRegistrationDepartment,Secretariat Builidng, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner and Inspector General, (R & S)' Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3. The Deputy lnspector General, (R & S), Warangal, Telangana State 4. The Deputy lnspector General., (R & S ), Karimnagar District, Telangana State

5. The Distrrct Registar, Adilabad District,Telangana State 6 One CC to SRI P V RAMANA, ACvocale ICPUCI T.TwoCCstoGPFORSERVICES-l,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' B. Two CD Copies To, TJ N1 HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER WP.No.24729 of 2024 (-t( THE S C) ? : JAil 20?6 c * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 - t\'i