S. Muthuramu v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :26-2-2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.19012 of 2007M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007S. Muthuramu...PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu,rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government,Public (Special-A) Department,Secretariat,Chennai - 9.2.The Inspector General of Registration,Foreshore Estate,Chennai -28....RespondentsPrayer:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 ofConstitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records relating to the firstrespondent vide letter No.379/2005-1, dated 20.8.2005 and quashthe same.For Petitioner: Mr.S.VijayakumarFor Respondents :Mr.I.ParanthamanAdditional Govt. PleaderO R D E RBy consent of both sides, the writ petition itself wastaken up for final disposal.2.Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the orderdated 20.8.2005, passed by the first respondent herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writpetition are as follows:(a)Petitioner started his service in the RevenueDepartment as Junior Assistant in the year 1972; got promoted asAssistant in the year 1975; further promoted as Deputy Tahsildarin the year 1984; as Tahsildar in the year 1993; as DeputyCollector in the year 1998; and as District Revenue Officer inthe year 2001. When the writ petition was filed, he was servingat the Principal Civil Services Training Institute, Bavanisagar.He has put in totally 34 years of service.(b)When the petitioner was promoted to the post of DeputyCollector, he was posted as Additional Special Deputy Collectorand at that time, the Sub Registrar, Arakkonam referred DocumentNo.70 of 1998 under section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. Onreceipt of the reference, petitioner took action as contemplatedunder Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation Instruments) Rules, 1968. On perusal of the documentand inspection of the property and after considering therepresentation, petitioner determined the market value of theproperty and fixed the value at Rs.22 per sq.ft. under section 5of the Indian Stamp Act. The said value was fixed consideringthe market value prevailing then, even though the nomenclatureof the land was shown as agriculture. The petitioner dischargedhis duties as a Quasi Judicial Authority and fixed the marketvalue in terms of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act.(c)On 20.8.2005, petitioner received a charge memo,framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that a loss of revenueto the Government to the tune of Rs.2,12,187/- was sustainedsince the petitioner failed to value the true market value bymaking local enquiry and arbitrarily fixed the value at Rs.22/-per sq.ft. and thereby petitioner contravened the Rule 20(1) ofthe Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.(d)According to the petitioner, he having exercised hispowers as contemplated under the provisions of the Indian StampAct, as a Quasi Judicial Authority, if anybody is aggrieved, theproper remedy is to file an appeal against the said order ascontemplated under the Act before the Inspector General ofRegistration and no misconduct for the alleged violation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules,is attracted. Petitioner sent a reply to the said charge memoon 28.11.2005 and stated that he has followed Rule 4 and 5 ofthe Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation ofInstruments) Rules, 1968, and also inspected the property,received representation from the party and also verified thesales took place in the nearby lands within the vicinity andthereafter fixed the market value.(e)One of the document referred to the petitioner wasDocument No.70 of 1998 of Joint Sub Registrar Officer,Arakkonam, through which an extent of 1.04 acre of landcomprised in T.S.Nos.25, 30, 32, 33 and 34 of Block-6, Ward- Dof Arakkonam Municipality, Ammanur Village of Arakkonam Taluk,had been sold. Immediately on receipt of the documents from theSub Registrar, he inspected the lands on 8.12.1998 and afterholding enquiry, he fixed the said market value. In fact, anaward was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, inrespect of lands under acquisition comprised in T.S.No.30/2,Block-4, Ward-D at the rate of Rs.16.06 per sq.ft. and whilepassing the award the Revenue Divisional Officer relied on thesales transaction took place on 15.3.1997 in documentNo.131/1997, Joint Registrar-II, Arakkonam.(f)Even though enquiry was concluded with regard to thesaid charge memo on 6.4.2006, a copy of the report was not givento the petitioner and after a request made, it was served onthe petitioner on 23.9.2006. In the enquiry, charge against thepetitioner was found proved. Petitioner submitted remarks tothe enquiry officer's report and requested to drop theproceedings and thereafter an order was passed stating that theguideline value of Rs.48.50 per sq.ft. for the total extent of45344 sq.ft. should have been relied on for valuation of theland and the said value should be used for calculating therevenue loss for the document bearing registration No.70/1998and the Government in consultation with Inspector General ofRegistration, arrived at a conclusion that the loss is sustainedby the Government. (g)The said order is challenged on the ground that thepetitioner having performed his duties as Quasi JudicialAuthority under section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, nocharge could be framed against the petitioner, that too after a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of seven years. Petitioner bona fidely believed thatRs.22/- per sq.ft. will be the proper value. He has relied onthe valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing thevalue of Rs.16.06 per sq.ft. by award dated 17.7.2000 for thelands in the very same survey number. No motive is attributedagainst the petitioner and as such the charge itself is notmaintainable. Thus the petitioner has challenged the chargememo as it is not maintainable.4.Respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it iscontended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to justify hisimproper action under the cover of quasi judicial function whenthere is material to show that his fixation is of lower marketvalue.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as wellas the learned Additional Government Pleader. 6.From the perusal of the charge memo it could be seenthat the allegation against the petitioner is that he has fixedthe market value at Rs.22/- per sq.ft. in Document No.70 of 1998whereas the adjacent lands were acquired by the Government onnegotiation at the rate of Rs.58/- per sq.ft. in the year 1999.No motive or ill-will is alleged in the said imputation ofcharge. Admittedly petitioner is exercising quasi-judicialfunction under section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. If theDepartment is not satisfied with the valuation, nothingprevented the Department from filing appeal before the InspectorGeneral of Registration challenging the order passed by thepetitioner, fixing the market rate of Rs.22/- per sq.ft. In theabsence of any motive or bad intention, no charge could beframed against the Quasi-Judicial Authority and the same is wellsettled.7.(a)In the decision reported in (1999) 7 SCC 409(Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India), the SupremeCourt considered similar issue and held that negligence inexercising quasi-judicial power by mere carelessness orinadvertence or omission is not sufficient to initiateproceedings under misconduct. Unless there is a culpablenegligence or ill-motive, no charge could be framed. Inparagraphs 43 and 44, the Supreme Court held as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "43.If every error of law were toconstitute a charge of misconduct, it wouldimpinge upon the independent functioning ofquasi-judicial officers like the appellant.Since in sum and substance misconduct issought to be inferred by the appellant havingcommitted an error of law, the charge-sheeton the face of it does not proceed on anylegal premise rendering it liable to bequashed. In other words, to maintain anycharge-sheet against a quasi-judicialauthority something more has to be allegedthan a mere mistake of law, e.g., in thenature of some extraneous considerationinfluencing the quasi-judicial order. Sincenothing of the sort is alleged herein theimpugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal.The charge sheet, if sustained, will thusimpinge upon the confidence and independentfunctioning of a quasi-judicial authority.The entire system of administrativeadjudication whereunder quasi-judicial powersare conferred on administrative authorities,would fall into disrepute if officersperforming such functions are inhibited inperforming their functions without fear orfavour because of the constant threat ofdisciplinary proceedings.44.Considering whole aspects of thematter, we are of the view that it was not acase for initiation of any disciplinaryproceedings against the appellant. Thecharge of misconduct against him was notproper. It has to be quashed."(b)Whether the disciplinary proceeding can be initiatedagainst a judicial officer, who granted bail exercisingdiscretion while discharging the Judicial function, wasconsidered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in(2007) 2 SCC (Criminal) 266 (Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Courtof Allahabad). In paragraph 12, the Supreme Court held asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "12.This Court on several occasions hasdisapproved the practice of initiation ofdisciplinary proceedings against officers ofthe subordinate judiciary merely because thejudgments/orders passed by them are wrong.The appellate and revisional courts have beenestablished and given powers to set asidesuch orders. The higher courts after hearingthe appeal may modify or set aside erroneousjudgments of the lower courts. While takingdisciplinary action based on judicial orders,the High Court must take extra care andcaution."(c)In the decision reported in 2007 (3) LLN 106 = (2007)4 SCC 566 (Inspector Prem Chand v. Government of N.C.J. ofDelhi) following the earlier decisions, the Supreme Court heldthat the acts of negligence, error of judgment or innocentmistake, do not constitute misconduct. In the above case, theappellant/Police Officer failed to seize the tainted money onreceipt of complaint of alleged demand of bribe by an Inspector(Malairiya). Department initiated disciplinary proceeding onthe charge that he had not seized the tainted money, which couldbe an important piece of evidence in criminal proceeding. TheSupreme Court held that the Police Inspector could not be saidto have committed any misconduct merely because in the opinionof the higher authorities he ought to have seized the taintedmoney. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 10 to 12 dealt with theterm misconduct, which reads as follows:"10. In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh,Ex-Constable (1999 (2) LLN 419) it wasstated, in para.5, at page 422: “Misconduct has been defined in Black’sLaw Dictionary , 6th Edn. at p.999,thus: ‘A transgression of someestablished and definite rule of action,a forbidden act, a dereliction fromduty, unlawful behavior, willful incharacter, improper or wrong behavior;its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety,mismanagement, offense, but notnegligence or carelessness.’ Misconduct in office has been defined as: ‘Any unlawful behavior by a publicofficer in relation to the duties of hisoffice, willful in character. Term embracesacts which the office-holder had no right toperform, acts performed improperly, andfailure to act in the face of an affirmativeduty to act.’ ” 11. In P.Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon ,3rd Edn., at p.3027, the term “misconduct”has been defined as under: “The term ‘misconduct’ implies awrongful intention, and not a mere errorof judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily thesame thing as conduct involving moralturpitude. The word ‘misconduct’ is a relativeterm, and has to be construed withreference to the subject-matter and thecontext wherein the term occurs, havingregard to the scope of the Act orstatute which is being construed.‘Misconduct’ literally means wrongconduct or improper conduct.” (See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v.T.K. Raju (2006 (2) LLN 54)) 12. It is not in dispute that adisciplinary proceeding was initiated againstthe appellant in terms of the provisions ofthe Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1980. It was, therefore, necessary forthe disciplinary authority to arrive at afinding of fact that the appellant was guiltyof an unlawful behaviour in relation todischarge of his duties in service, which waswilful in character. No such finding was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arrived at. An error of judgment, as noticedhereinbefore, per se is not a misconduct. Anegligence simpliciter also would not be amisconduct. In Union of India v. J.Ahmed((1979) 2 SCC 286) whereupon Mr Sharanhimself has placed reliance, this Court heldso stating: “Code of conduct as set out in theConduct Rules clearly indicates theconduct expected of a member of theservice. It would follow that conductwhich is blameworthy for the governmentservant in the context of Conduct Ruleswould be misconduct. If a servantconducts himself in a way inconsistentwith due and faithful discharge of hisduty in service, it is misconduct (seePierce v. Foster 17 Q.B.536, 542). Adisregard of an essential condition ofthe contract of service may constitutemisconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle(Indicator Newspapers (1959(1)W.L.R.698)). This view was adopted inShardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v.Divisional Supdt., Central Rly., NagpurDivision, Nagpur (61 B.L.R. 1569) andSatubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (10G.L.R. 23). The High Court has noted thedefinition of misconduct in Stroud’sJudicial Dictionary which runs as under:‘Misconduct means, misconductarising from ill motive; acts ofnegligence, errors of judgment, orinnocent mistake, do not constitute suchmisconduct ’.”(emphasis supplied) (d)A Division Bench of this Court in the decisionreported in 1999 (2) LW 174 (A.M.Sankaran v. The Registrar, HighCourt, Madras), quashed an order of compulsory retirement passedagainst the judicial officer for destroying the seized spiritwithout examining or recording any evidence regarding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inflamable nature of the spirit. This court held that the saidorder having been passed during discharge of the function asjudicial officer, framing such charge without any allegation orrecklessness or abuse of power, cannot be sustained.8.Applying the principles laid down in the abovedecisions to the facts of this case, particularly when there isno motive or recklessness attributed against the petitioner andno misconduct is committed by the petitioner, I hold, the chargeas framed is not maintainable against the petitioner, who is aquasi-judicial authority. The impugned order is set aside andthe writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.vrSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,Public (Special-A) Department,Secretariat,Chennai - 9.2.The Inspector General of Registration,Foreshore Estate,Chennai -28.•2 ccs to Mr. S. Vijayakumar, Advocate SR 10248AKR (co)sg 04/03/08Order inW.P.No.19012 of 2007 & connected MPs. 26-2-2008