The High Court · 2025

Order

The petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved datecL 04.lO.2022, by the proceedings No'Al4OO5l2O21 ' passed by the 2'd respondent confirming the punishment imposed b-y the 3'd respondent vide proceedings No.G I 5 I 2021, dated 03'06'2022

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju' le'a rned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondents' /) Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (i) The Petitioner was initially aPPointed as a which was, subsequentlY Section Writer on O2'O2'2OOO' upgraded to Junior Assistant in 2005' The petitioner was promoted to Senior Assistant in 2016' rMhile so' the petitioner was placed as incharge Sub-Registrar post at SRO, Bibinagar' While u'orking in the said place' the petitioner rvas kept under suspension vide proceedings 2 dated 18.06.202 1 issued by the 3'd respondent alleging that he has admitted certain documents in question contraqr to the instructions issued by the l"t respondent. The petitioner was given a charge memo on 17.O8.2O21, td which the petitioner submitted an explanation

06.09.2021, denying the charges. However, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 29.09.2021 and posted as a Senior Assistant in the office of the SRO, Bibinagar and deputed to work in the ofhce of District Registrar (MV & Audit) Nalgonda. Thereafter, the supplementary charge memo was also issued to the petitioner on 09.02.2022, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.02.2022, denying the charges levelled against him. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the District Registrar, Medchal Malkjajgiri District, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to look into the matter and to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. (i0 In pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to submit t J his statement to the charge framed agzrinst him Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his stater:aent before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner categorically submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in- W.P.No.9248 of 2021, the instructions dated tl6-O8-2O2O or 29-12-2020 have no basis. Contrary to the rule position, the Enquiry Officer has obtained the deposition of the Presenting Officer, who was the preliminary enquiry officer in the issue in question. On the basis of the cleposition of the presenting officer and the written submission of the petitioner, the enquiry officer gave his findings as if they proved the charges framed against the petitioner. (iii) In pursuance of the said enquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 07.O5.2O22 was issue,l, calling for the petitioner's explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 16.05.2022, stating that he did not commit any mistake. As []rere is no evidence on record to prove the charges frarned against him, he requested to drop the further action in the matter. However, rvithout considering the same, the 3rcj respondent 4 issued proceedings No.G/512021 dated 03.06.2022, imposing the punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments of pay wittr cumulative effect against the

petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the 3'd respondent, the petitioner Iiled an appeal before the 2"d respondent. Without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the 2"d respondent passed the order rejecting the petitioner's case vide proceedings No.A/a550/202 1 dated 04.1O.2022. Aggrieved thereby; the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. lrarned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the imposition of punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment. For imposing significant punishment, a fair and transparent enquiry should have been conducted in terms of Rule 2O of TSCS & CCA Rules (for short, 'the CCA RulesJ. In the present case, contrary to the rules and contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme Court, the respondents imposed the punishment, - 5 based on the enquiry report, which is ex-Jacie lllegal Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that no witnesses were examined in the enquiry. The entire enquiry is conducted contrary to thr: procedure contemplatecl under Rule 2O of the CCA Rules. No documents u,ere marked in the enquiry. The presenting officer has to present his witnesses and the documents The documents shall be marked through the withess presented before the presenting offrcer. But, in the present case, the presenting officer has marked the document on his own through his depositions. The preliminary enquiry ofhcer cannot be a presenting officer. The prese.nting officer cannot mark any document on his own. He can only present the case of disciplinary authority. Therefore, the deposition of the presenting officer and the document he marked is contradicts the procedure contemp.lated under Rule 2O of the CCA Rules

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitrc,ner further submits that there is no evidence before the enquiry officer 6 to prove the charges. Inspite of the same, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report as if the charge framed against the petitioner held proved by his report dated 02.O5.2O22. 7 . lrarned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the 3.d respondent, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, erroneously passed the order dated 03.06.2022. The 2"d respondent, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the 3,a respondent. Therefore, learned counsel submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and a1low the writ petition. 8 (i). Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidarrit stating that the 2"d respondent issued Circular Memo No.G2 /257 /2019, dated 26.0A.2020, to implement certain statutory provisions effectively. The said provisions are already in force to stop the illegal registration of plots and buildings 1n unauthorized layouts ald structures. The Registrar must examine the provisions of the Acts as on the date of -J 1 Registration of the document and protect the interest of the innocent public. It is stated that on noticing the difficulties, in order to obviate any hardship relating to tht: registration of documents, after careful consideration of the relevant- provisions of lau, and circumstances, certain clarifications are issued br'' the respondent authorities on '.29 .12 .2O2O, u,hich are as follou,s :- "(i) Registrations can be taken up in respect of open plot.s/ stnrctures, if the same has been ac'quired bg the present ou.tner through a ualid rellistered doatntertt earlier. (ii) Houteuer, no "neu) plot" shall be reg1istered unless has been approved bg th.e corn.oetent authoritu or is in an outhorized lagout. Neu.t plot u.tould mean a fresh plot uthich is being broug'ht the registrotion for the first time or being sold by deuelopers for the first time. (iii) As clariJied earlier, therb is no restriction on registration of plots in authorized lagout.s, pLots regulaized under earlier LRS ScLrcme.s and buildings/ structures couered under earlier BPS/ BRS Schemes" (ii) The District Registrar, Nalgonda, vide Lr.No.G/2136 12021 , dated 18.06.2021 and 19.06.2021 submitted th at the Sub-Registrar, Huzurnagar, reported 8 that nine documents styled as "Agreement of Sale-cum GPA" bearing registered document Nos.(1) I4l2/2021, (21 t413 / 2OT., (3lr4t4 / 2O2t, (41 14 rs I 2021, (sl r4t6 / 2O2r (6lt4t7 /2o2t (7lr4r9l2o2r, (8)r4t9/2021 and registered at SRO Huzurnagar, (elr42o/2o2r affecting the properties mentioned in Schedules I and II of the said documents. In all the aforesaid nine documents, the properties mentioned in Schedule I fall under the jurisdiction of SRO, Huzurnagar, along with link document No.734/2012, and the properties mentioned in Schedule-Il fall under the jurisdiction of SRO, Suryapet, without any link documents. Further, the executartts of the documents wwwwwwin question declared themselves as absolute owners on the strength of pattedar Pass Book-cum-Title deeds. They made the agricultural land into several open plots without obtaining NALA Permission or layout approval from competent authorities. (iiil The District Registrar, Nalgonda, submitted that all the aforesaid nine documents, which the petitioner registered. Accordingly, a-fter careful examination of the W 9 detailed report submitted by the District Registrar, Nalgonda, to the 3.d respondent and the report submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Huzurnagar, to the Distnct Registrar, Nalgonda, it is observed that the petitioner arLd the then Incharge Sub Registrar, SRO, Huzurnagar, have admitted the above documents and registered the same contrary to the instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, T.S., Hyderabad, vide Memo.No.G2 1257 /2079, dated

26.08.2020 .and

29.12.2020. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and in view of the report submitted by the District Registrar, Nalgonda, Respondent No.3 founcl that the petitioner has contravened Rule 3 (1) & (2) of the CCA Rules and farled to follow the instructions issr:ed by the Commissioner arrd Inspector Genera,l of Regist.ration and Stamps, T.S., Hyderabad. (i") Respondent No.3, being a clisciplinary authority, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub Rule (1) Rule B of the CCA Rules, vide Proceedings No.Gl5l2021 , dated lB.06.2O2l, placed the petitioner 10 under suspension and through Charge Memo-Gl5l2O2l' dt:17.O8.2O21, charges were framed to that effect against the petitioner. In response to the charges framed against him, the petitioner submitted his explanation on

06.o9.2021. (v) After careful examination of the defense statement of the petitioner, Respondent No.3 revoked the Suspension orders issued against the petitioner and reinstated him to his original station at SRO, Bibinagar, and deputed to work at the ofhce of the District Registrar, (Market Va-lue and Audit) Nalgonda, on administrative grounds, vide Proceedings No.G / 5 I 2O2l ,

29.O9.2021. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his findings stating that the charges fiamed against the petitioner are proved beyond any reasonable doubt vide Lr.No.E/Enq I 9329 /2021, dated 02.05.2022. Accordingly, Respondent No.3 accepted the findings of the Regular Enquiry officer and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.O5.2O22 to explain why a major penalty of reduction in Ralk under -{- I Rule 9(vii) cannot be imposed on him and submit his written explanation, if any' Pursuant to the said show- cause notice, the petitioner submitted his written defense statement on 16'05 20 22' After careful examination of the Enquiry report of the Regular Enquiry Office:r and the the petitioner, the disciPlinary defense statement of authority accepted the hndings of the regul{u. enqulry respect to the charges framed against the officer with The punishment of the major penalty of three annual grade increments of pay with withholding cumulative eft-ect was imposed against the petl'tioner vide proceedings dated O3 O6 '2022' Aggrieved l'trereby' the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2'd respondent' The 2'd respondent, vide order dated O4'10'20"22' rejected petitioner. the aPPeal Pleader aPPeanrrg for the g. Learned Government the 3'a resPorLdent, aJter respondents submitted that considering the petitioner's explanation onll' passed the proceedings dated 03'06' 2022 imposing the punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments of pay with t2 l. cumulative effect, and the 2"a respondent upheld the same vide proceedings dated O4-1O.2022. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered vier,r' that, with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner that the entire enquiry is conducted contrary to the procedure contemplated under Rule 2O of the CCA Rules, the respondents have not produced any evidence as to whether conducted the enquiry by following Rule 2O of the CCA Rules or not.

11. In the counter filed by the respondents, the respondents have not properly explained whether the Rules are followed or not ?

12. Rule 20(7)(a) of the CCA Rules states that the disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority- (t) a copg of tle orticles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehauiour; (i4 a copa of th-e utitten statement of the de-fence, if anA submitted bg the Gouernment seruant; (iii) copies of the Statements of Witnesses, reJbrred to in sub-rule (3); (iu) copies of documents rekrred to in sub-rule (3). (iu) euidence prouing the deliuery of copies of tLe doatments refered to in sub'n e (3) to the Gouemment seruant; and (u) a copA of the order appointing ttrc "Presenting Officer"-

13. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the respondents have not followed Rule 20 of the Rules in its strict sense. In the enquiry, the petitioner statred that it is very clear that the registration of documents rnentioned in the charge memo are not violative of any instructions issued by the department/superior officers;/municipal authorities/panchayatraj department from time to time' Even without reference to the orders of this Court, as the above said registrations were made l-ed<ing into consideration the instructions issued by the C'cmmissioner ald Inspector General of Registration ard St:mps, T'S', l t4 I Hyderabad, from time to time till issuance of clarificatory memo dated 29-12-2020, it cal be said that there is no violation of any instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, T.S., Hyderabad, dated 26.08.2O2O and 29.L2.2O2O. In view of the orders of this Court, it is clear that by declaration of memo dated 22.03.1993 of the I.G of Registration and Stamps as null and void and inoperative as mentioned in the orders of this Court in W.P.No.9248 of 202 1, dated 23.08.2021, there was no power on the part of the department to reissue similar instructions on 26-08-2020 and as such it can be said that the said circular memo dated 26-08 -2O2O rrright have been issued when the earlier fact of declaring the memo dated 23-02-1993 was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, T.S., Hyderabad' As explained above, there was neither violation of C & I.G' instructions nor ill motive in registering above documents. Those were registered taking into consideration the instructions issued from time to time, including those dated 26.08 .2O2O and, 29.12-2020. There is no loss of t5 revenue to the Government Exchequer in registering the above documents and also submitted several facts and circumstalces in his Iinal defense statement. The said factors were not considered by the Regular Enquiry Off,rcer. and ultimately, the Regular Enquiry Officer submitted his findings stating that the charges framed :rgainst the petitioner are proved

15. In the appeal hled before the 2"d respondent, the petitioner stated that the nine documents were registered following the rules/ instructions issued from time to time. There is no loss of revenue to the Governmer:Lt exchequer, and there is no violation of provisions of Sect.ion 28 of the Registration Act, 1908. A11 the instructions issued by C&IG (R&S) from time to time including those issued on 26.08.2020 and 29.1.2.2020 were followed in registering the documents in question. The scheduled properties are residential plots in nature, and they do not corrLe in the list of prohibited properties under Section 2'il'-A of the Registration Act, as such, he had registered the documents in question in the discharge of his official dr-rties without J l6 any malalide intention. As regards the supplementary charge, it is stated that he was present and signed the attendance register regularly for the period O1.lO.2O2l to

06.12.2021 and due to unexpected and abnormal health conditions and the doctor's advice not to move from the bed, he submitted his leave application along with medical certificate after recovery from ill-health. The Regular Enquiry Officer, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, held that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The 3.a respondent, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, erroneously passed the order dated 03.06.2022 imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and, therefore, requested to set aside the proceedings dated 03.06.2022.

76. Once the appeal IS filed, being the competent authority, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, T.S., Hyderabad, has to look into the entire appeal pleadings and pass appropriate orders. ( :, - 17 Without doing so, the appellate authorit5r simply rejected the appeal stating as follows ". . . . After careful examination, it is obs;erued that the grottnds of appeal are different froin the charges. The punishment orders issued bg the Deputy Inspector General (R&S) Medchal Mailcajgiri are in accord ance toith laut. Hence, tLrc appeal is hereby rejected. "

17. When the appeal is filed questioning the p,unishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the competent authority, i.e., the 2"d respondent, ought not to have rejected the appeal in a cryptic manner al cil moreover though the appeal is related to all the issues which are concerned with the petitioner and the act_icn of the authorities, the appellate authority stated that tire grounds of appeal are different from the charges. How can the appellate authority conclude that the appeal gr.ounds are different from the charges. Before imposing the major punishment, the authorities have to follow the Rules properly and impose the punishment in accorclance with the law. The appellate authorit;z rejected the a ppeal in a cryptic manner without going into the merits and demerits l8 *:??r:Iji of the case. Before imposing the major punishment, the respondent authorities have not followed the Rules in a proper manner. Further, ttre enquiry was not conducted properly and while conducting the enquiry, no witnesses were examined. Though the delinquent officer might have committed some errors while performing his duties, basing on that minor errors, it is not proper to impose such a major punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments of pay with cumulative effect, without following the Service rules in accordance with law. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellant authority is liable to be modilied.

18. Accordingly, the punishment of 'withholding of three annua-l grade increments of pay with cumulative effect" imposed by the disciplinary authority and as conlirmed by the appellate authority is modified to that of "withholding of one annual grade increment of pay with cumulative effect" ( W 19

19. With the above modification, the writ petition 1S disposed of. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous petitions, if aly shall stand clo sed. SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Telangana State, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration Stamps Department, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3. The Deputy lnSpeCtor General, Registration Stamps, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

4. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the St;ate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies PSK. LS I( ^l{-- HIGH COURT DATE D :0 310412025 ORDER WP.No.40686 of 2022 --i i..E S IA 16 ./:.+ i:- 0g APn 206 z o .\ \, * p-O !1 ;,n i C.\r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ..t(A ^ ft^,