Karnataka High Court
Dr G Kumari Roopa vs 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.22099/2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. G KUMARI ROOPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
D/O DR. H GANGADARAPPA
R/AT NO.101, B BLOCK
QUEENS CORNER APARTMENT
OPPOSITE INDIAN EXPRESS
QUEENS ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI YESHU BABA R MISHRA, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(REGISTRATION AND STAMPS)
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU- 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2021 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.8653/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.KAMEE 02 MUNOSAY (2), 2018 BENGALURU DATED 10.08.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE- A5 IN ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
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 T.M.NADAF CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 19.08.2021 in Application No.8653/2018 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 withholding of promotion for a period of four 3 years from the date of becoming eligible for promotion is rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar, BTM Layout, Jayanagar, Bengaluru during the relevant period. On the allegation that the petitioner colluded with one Sri.Dharanendraiah and has allegedly registered a cancellation deed of a Joint Development Agreement (for short, 'JDA') on the basis of the General Power of Attorney (for short, 'GPA') said to have been executed by one Smt.Sujatha Jinesh without verifying or without obtaining the original of the GPA, a departmental enquiry was initiated by issuance of articles of charge dated 06.09.2016. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer of the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted its report dated 30.01.2018 which was forwarded by the Upa-Lokayukta to the respondent-State Government along with re-4
commendation of Upa-Lokayukta dated 03.02.2018 wherein the recommendation was made to withhold four annual increments with cumulative effect and also to defer promotion wherever she becomes eligible for promotion. The petitioner was issued second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The petitioner replied to the second show cause notice on 30.05.2018. Thereafter, considering the entire material on record, the first respondent-Disciplinary Authority by order dated 10.08.2018, imposed punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect and deferring promotion for a period of four years from the date the petitioner becomes eligible for promotion in exercise of power under Rule 8(iii) and 8(iiia) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, '1957 Rules') for the proved misconduct. 5
3. Questioning the said order of penalty, petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.8653/2018 inter alia mainly contending that when the executant of the document admitted the execution, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to register the document and that the Sub-Registrar is not concerned with the GPA said to have been executed in favour of the executant. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner and consequently rejected the challenge to the order of penalty. Questioning the rejection of Application under impugned order as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli for Sri.Yeshu Baba R. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for the 6 respondent-State. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli would submit that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is opposed to the material on record and that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the role of Sub-Registrar in registration of a document. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner registered the cancellation deed of JDA presented in the absence of the executant. Learned senior counsel would submit that the allegation is that the cancellation of JDA was by Sri.Dharanendraiah and by one Smt.Sujatha Jinesh who is said to have executed GPA in favour of Sri.Dharanendraiah and while registering the cancellation of JDA, the petitioner colluded with Sri.Dharanendraiah by accepting bribe of Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence for alleged acceptance of Rs.50,000/- for 7 registration of cancellation deed. In the absence of any evidence on record, learned senior counsel would submit that the Enquiry Officer committed an error in holding that the charges are proved. It is further submitted that subsequently on 01.02.2018, confirmation deed was executed by Smt.Sujatha Jinesh confirming the cancellation which was not taken into consideration either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Tribunal.
6. Learned senior counsel submitted that, in terms of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, '1908 Act'), there is no ground to refuse the registration of a document. It is also contended that said Sri.Dharanendraiah at the time of registration of cancellation of JDA had produced the GPA executed by Smt.Sujatha Jinesh and the same was missing in the records and thereafter the petitioner had issued notice to Sri.Dharanendraiah to produce another copy of 8 GPA. It is also stated that the petitioner had also filed complaint with the police for missing GPA. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of all the above while passing the impugned order. Learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner had duly fulfilled her duties as a Sub-Registrar and as a Registering Authority, following the due procedure prescribed under the 1908 Act while considering registering the cancellation deed dated 21.11.2014.
7. Learned senior counsel placing reliance on the judgments 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 contends that the Sub- Registrar cannot refuse registration of any document when presented and the Sub-Registrars have no 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693 2 (CIVIL APPEAL No.3954/2025, D.D., 07.04.2025) 9 jurisdiction to examine the title over the property. Further, learned senior counsel placing reliance on the above decisions would also submit that the function of the Sub-Registrar in registering a document is a quasi judicial function and as such no departmental enquiry against such act would be maintainable. Thus, learned senior counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent - State would submit that for the proved misconduct, the petitioner is imposed penalty of withholding four increments with cumulative effect and also postponing promotion for four years from the date she becomes eligible, which is proportionate to the gravity and nature of the misconduct. Further, it is submitted that the charge against the petitioner is that, without verifying or obtaining GPA the petitioner proceeded to 10 register the document which is opposed to the provisions of the 1908 Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the executants of a document shall be present at the time of registration of the document. If one of the executant is represented by GPA, such GPA shall accompany the document which shall be registered. As the petitioner had failed to verify the GPA on which one of the party brought the document for registration, she has committed misconduct, and it is clear violation of provisions of 1908 Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate refuting the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that it is a quasi judicial function which the Sub-Registrar performs, submits that the function of Sub-Registrar in registration of a document is an administrative act and the function of Sub-Registrar would not involve determination of rights of the 11 parties. Thus, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only question which falls for our consideration is as to, "Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as order of penalty warrants interference at the hands of this Court?"
10. Answer to the above question would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and limits to correcting errors of law or procedural errors which results in injustice or violation of principles of natural 12 justice. Moreover, this Court would not act as appellate Court on the order passed by disciplinary authority.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has laid down the principles governing the powers of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. 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:
3
(2021) 2 SCC 612 13 "22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by 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 14 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 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;15
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
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. 16
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not 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." Keeping in mind the above principles the instant case shall have to be examined.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar at BTM Layout, Jayanagar, Bengaluru during the relevant period. The charge against the petitioner in terms of articles of charge dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A1) reads as follows:
"That, you-DGO/Dr.Kumari Roopa.G., the then Sub-Registrar, (BTM Layout) Jayanagar, 17 Bangalore colluded with Sri.B.Dharanendraiah knowingly fully well that, when execution is done by General Power of Attorney is under obligation and duty to collect the General Power of Attorney to verify with the original and knowingly registered the cancellation deed of Joint Development Agreement on 22/11/2014 under deed No.BNO(U)RRN/1607/2007-08 and while registering the said cancellation deed violated the provisions of Registration Act and Rules. Thereby you-DGO being a Government Servant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty, the act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby committed misconduct as enumerated U/R 3(1)(i) to (iii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966."
14. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner in collusion with one Sri.B.Dharanendraiah knowing fully well that when registration is done by GPA, it is the duty to collect the GPA to verify and in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules, registered the cancellation deed of JDA on 22.11.2014 18 and thereby committed misconduct. The deed of cancellation of JDA is placed on record as Annexure-A2. A perusal of the cancellation deed would reveal that one of the party M/s. Sanjana Developers was represented by Sri.Dharanendraiah and Smt.Sujatha Jinesh. However, Smt.Sujatha Jinesh was represented by managing partner Sri.Dharanendraiah, as her GPA. The said deed of cancellation of JDA is registered on 22.11.2014 only in the presence of Sri.B.Dharanendraiah and at that time, he represented Smt.Sujatha Jinesh, but the petitioner failed to obtain the GPA on which Sri.B.Dharanendraiah represented Smt.Sujatha Jinesh.
15. The Enquiry Officer in his report has categorically held that the oral and documentary evidence on record would show that the DGO colluded with Sri.B.Dharanendraiah and registered the cancellation deed of JDA on 22.11.2014, without 19 obtaining GPA of one of the executant and violated the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules. The petitioner/DGO had contended that the GPA said to be executed by the complainant in favour of Sri.Dharanendraiah is missing. However, it is the contention of PW1 - Smt.Sujatha Jinesh that she has not at all executed any GPA in favour of Sri.Dharanendraiah to cancel the JDA. Thus, the material on record is sufficient to prove the charge, that too, on principles of preponderance of probabilities.
16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that no enquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner in the matter of registration of a document since the functions of the Sub-Registrar is quasi judicial in nature.
20
17. 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 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, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The said decision would in no way assist the petitioner.
18. In K.GOPI (supra), the disciplinary proceedings were against the Sub-Registrar who refused to registered 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: 21
"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 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."22
19. 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. However, when a document is sought to be registered on the basis of a GPA, a duty is cast upon the Registering Authority to satisfy himself as to the right of the power of attorney holder to execute the document, in terms of Sections 33 & 34 of the Act.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VS. S.P.VELAYTHAM AND OTHERS4, explained the scope of Section 34 of the Registration 4 (2022) 8 SCC 210 23 Act and at paragraphs 27, 29, 29 and 30 has held as follows:
"27. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 imposes three obligations upon the registering officer. These obligations are:
(i) To enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it is claimed to have been executed;
(ii) To satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and claiming to have executed the document;
(iii) To satisfy himself about the right of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, to so appear;
(emphasis supplied)
28. We may note that Sections 32(c), 34(1) and 34(3)(c) use the expressions "agent", "representative" and "assign". Though in common parlance, we understand the power of attorney agent of a person to be the representative of the principal, the words "agent" and "representative" are used in Sections 32(c) and 34(3)(c) to mean different persons. The word "representative" is 24 defined in Section 2(10) of the Registration Act "to include the guardian of a minor and the committee or other legal curator of a lunatic or idiot". The words "agent" and "assign" are not defined in the Act. Therefore, we may justifiably borrow the definition of the expression "agent" from Section 182 of the Contract Act, 1872, which defines an "agent" "to mean a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third person".
29. Keeping the above definitions in mind, if we go back to Section 32(c) it could be seen that whenever the agent of,
(i) the executant;
(ii) the claimant;
(iii) a representative; or
(iv) an assign, presents a document for
registration,
(1) he should have been authorised by PoA and (2) such PoA should have been executed and authenticated in the manner provided in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 33. The requirement of registration depends upon the State amendments.
25
30. What is covered by Section 32(c) read with Section 33(1) is something different from what is covered by Section 34(3). While Section 32(c) read with Section 33(1) speaks about the entitlement of the person to present a document for registration, Section 34(3) speaks about the enquiry to be conducted and the satisfaction to be arrived at by the registering officer. Section 34(3)(c) imposes an obligation on the registering officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent. This prescription has to be read with Rule 46 of the Tamil Nadu Rules."
21. The above decision would make it abundantly clear that the Sub-Registrar shall satisfy himself as to the right of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, to so appear. Whenever a document is sought to be registered through a power of attorney i.e., by an agent of the executant, claimant, representative or an assignee presents a document for registration, the Sub- 26 Registrar shall satisfy himself as to whether it is executed and authenticated in the manner provided in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of the 1908 Act.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SATYA PAL ANAND VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS5, 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 5 (2016) 10 SCC 767 27 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 person having title, as mentioned in the instrument. We agree with that exposition."
23. 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.
28
24. The Tribunal on going through the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the documents i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and after analyzing the same, has rightly come to the conclusion that without verifying the GPA authorizing Sri.Dharanendraiah to submit document seeking cancellation of the JDA, the petitioner proceeded to register the document. It is not the case of the petitioner that she has not provided proper opportunity to defend herself before the Enquiry Officer or that she has been denied cross- examination. It is also to be noted that no strict rules of evidence would be applicable to the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. There is sufficient material/evidence to prove the charge. In the said circumstance, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and also we are of the opinion that the impugned 29 order of penalty is proportionate to the proved misconduct.
25. 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 NC CT: bms