Karnataka High Court
Dr. Kumari Roopa. G vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.10564/2020 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. KUMARI ROOPA G
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D/O DR. H GANGADARAPPA
R/AT NO.101, 'B' BLOCK
QUEENS CORNER APARTMENT
QUEENS ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(REGISTRATION AND STAMPS)
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
2
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. SRI BHASKAR
S/O SIDDARAMAPPA CHOWR
SUB-REGISTRAR
O/O THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADV. FOR R2 SRI K SATHISH, ADV. FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2020 AT ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.1786 AND 2201/2020 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2020 PASSED BY R1 ANNEXURE- A5 AT ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 31.07.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 28.02.2020 in Application Nos.1786 & 2201 of 2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder, the petitioner's challenge to the order of penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect and also withholding of promotion for a period of four years from the date she became eligible for promotion, is rejected.
2. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the above lis are that, on the complaint of one Sri.Puttanaiah, investigation was taken up by the second respondent and after investigation, the second respondent submitted a report under Section 12(3) of 4 the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short "1984 Act"). Based on the report submitted under Section 12(3) of 1984 Act, the first respondent-State Government entrusted enquiry to the second respondent. The second respondent nominated the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and accordingly, the nominated Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 11.09.2018 holding that the Disciplinary Authority has proved the charges. The said enquiry report along with recommendation of the Upa Lokayukta dated 14.09.2018 was forwarded to the first respondent-State Government. The first respondent issued second show-cause notice dated 20.10.2018 enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner herein submitted her reply on 22.11.2018. The first respondent-State Government, on consideration of the entire record, under impugned order dated 27.05.2020 imposed punishment as 5 stated above. Questioning the said order of punishment, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated applications. The Tribunal, vide impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner as one devoid of merits. Questioning the said order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli for Sri.Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1; Sri.Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri.K.Sathish, learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Caveator. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
6
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner grossly undervalued the property and registered the same in favour of one Chandru and that the petitioner registered a sale deed on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney (for short, 'GPA') and thereby acted against Section 17 of the Registration Act, which amounted to misconduct in terms of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. However, it is submitted that only charge of undervaluation is held to be proved and charge of registering a document on the basis of unregistered GPA is not proved. He submits that if there is any error in receiving the stamp duty, the same cannot be the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not an authority to determine the stamp duty or to determine whether the adjudication done by the District 7 Registrar is accurate or not. When it is not the duty of the petitioner to adjudicate the stamp value, no charge with regard to undervaluation could be attributed to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would submit that the valuation was done based on the adjudication of the District Registrar. Moreover, he submits that deficit stamp duty is collected subsequently by issuing notice which has not been taken note of by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
5. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that, when notice was issued to the person in favour of whom the document was registered and when deficit stamp duty is collected, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Tribunal committed an error in imposing punishment as well as in confirming punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Sub- 8 Registrar would act as quasi judicial authority and the act or action of the Sub-Registrar cannot be the subject matter for enquiry, since the action of the Sub-Registrar is appealable to the District Registrar. In that regard, learned senior counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS1 and K.GOPI VS. THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND OTHERS2 Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the order of penalty.
6. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that the allegation or charge of undervaluation of document registered by the petitioner is proved by the material placed on record. Further, learned AGA would submit that the subsequent action of the petitioner in issuing 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 9 notice and collecting deficit stamp duty itself would be sufficient to hold that the petitioner by undervaluing the document, registered the same. Learned AGA would invite attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and submits that undervaluation of the document registered is proved. Learned AGA further submits that the petitioner in her reply to the charge memo admitted that at the time of registration of disputed document, she had collected only Rs.17,00,000/- as stamp duty and Rs.3,00,000/- as registration fees instead of Rs.35,20,092/- stamp duty and Rs.6,23,030/- towards registration fees by referring to page 291 of the paper book. Thus, learned AGA would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not 10 made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
8. The scope of interference in the matters of disciplinary enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very narrow and is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors which results in injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
9. In the case of DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA3 the Hon'ble Apex Court was examining the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary enquiry and in the said process at paragraphs 22, 23, 25 to 28, it has held as follows:
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by 3 (2021) 2 SCC 612 11 constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under: (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp.
759-60, para 13) "13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the 12 court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103].
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.13
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not 14 interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
10. The petitioner was Sub-Registrar of Jayanagar and the petitioner has not disputed the registration of document i.e., sale deed in favour of one Chandru in respect of the land in Dodderi village measuring 15 acres 13 guntas. At paragraph 36 of the Enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has observed as follows:
"36. So far as undervaluation is concerned, DGO admits that it was undervalued and that she collected stamp duty on the basis of the rate at which District Registrar adjudicated the stamp duty as per Ex.D-4(a) at Rs.16 lakhs per acre and that she had mistaken the said calculation made by the District Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, 15 Jayanagar and collected the stamp duty for registration of Sale Deed. This explanation cannot be accepted. It is seen that the deficit stamp duty was collected only after lodging of the complaints by the complainant and issuance of memo to the DGO by the District Registrar. Therefore, to that extent DGO is liable and has committed dereliction of duty and to that extent charge is proved. But, there is no evidence to show that she has received bribe."
11. Further it is seen from the record and also from the enquiry report that the petitioner in her reply to the second show-cause notice dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure-H1) admitted that there was undervaluation. Paragraph 11 of her reply to the second show-cause notice reads as follows:
"The DGO submits that the sale deed was undervalued and registered which mistake was subsequently rectified by collecting the deficit stamp duty and there was no financial loss to the revenue."16
12. Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1977 would be relevant. In terms of the said provisions, when an instrument is presented for registration, if the registering authority has reasons to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly set-forth, then the Registering Authority shall make such enquiries as it deems fit and may also seek necessary information to ascertain the true market value. Unless the parties pay the duty as per the estimated valuation of the Registering Authority, in terms of Section 45A of the Stamp Act, the Registering Authority shall keep the registration pending and refer the instrument to a District Registrar for determination of the market value. In the instant case, the above procedure has not been 17 followed by the petitioner who was the Registering Authority and failed to ascertain the true value of the property to collect correct stamp duty. Rule 41 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 mandates the Registering Officer to examine every document before accepting for registration to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and Rules have been complied with i.e., the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and Rules.
13. Learned senior counsel contended that the functions of a Sub-Registrar is quasi judicial in nature and he placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra.
14. In the case of AMRESH SHRIVASTAVA (supra), on which the learned senior counsel placed reliance, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the show cause notice, charge sheet and penalty imposed on 18 the Tahsildar and in the facts and circumstance of the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the power exercised by the appellant in his capacity as Tahsildar while passing the order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The said decision would in no way assist the petitioner.
15. In K.GOPI (supra), the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Sub-Registrar who refused to register the sale deed. While considering the disciplinary proceedings against the Sub-Registrar for non-registration of sale deed at paragraph 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all 19 the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executants possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer."
A reading of the above portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it clear that the Registering Officer is not concerned with the title of the executants and he has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executants has any title. This decision also would not assist the petitioner. 20
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SATYA PAL ANAND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS4, while considering the role of a Sub- Registrar in registration of a document at paragraph 41 observed as follows:
"41. Section 35 of the Act does not confer a quasi-judicial power on the Registering Authority. The Registering Officer is expected to reassure that the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the 1908 Act. In Park View Enterprises [Park View Enterprises v. State of T.N., AIR 1990 Mad 251 : 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 273] it has been observed that the function of the Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by 4 (2016) 10 SCC 767 21 person having title, as mentioned in the instrument. We agree with that exposition."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of Section 35 of the Registration Act has held that it would not confer a quasi judicial power on the registering authority. The power and functions of the Sub-Registrar would not involve any adjudicatory function and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.GOPI (supra), the Registering Officer is not concerned with the title or it would not confer any power to decide whether the executants has any title. Therefore, the contention that functions of the Sub-Registrar is quasi judicial in nature is unsustainable and the same is rejected.
18. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate Authority and also would not go into the aspect as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient or not. This Court would examine only as to whether there is some 22 evidence to prove the charge on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. On going through the entire records, we are of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material/evidence on record to prove the charge against the petitioner.
19. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT: bms