Telangana High Court
Rev. Dept., Rep.B Y Plr. Sec. And ... vs Mohd. Raheemuddin And Another, on 7 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.14591 OF 2008
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2027 passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, Tribunal), in O.A.No.6614 of 2006.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-II for petitioners and Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for 1st respondent.
3. It has been contended that the respondent No.1 was working as District Registrar of Assurances, Ranga Reddy district, who was also Collector under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, during the years 1994 and 1995. While so, the respondent No.1 indulged in corrupt practices and undervalued the documents by decreasing the value of the lands of Sy.Nos.204, 1988, 1999, 200, 202 and 203 of Kukatpally village of Ranga Reddy district and registered the documents under valuing the land at Rs.98/- per square yard as against Rs.150/-
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 2 per square yard as per the basic value register and thus, caused loss of Rs.4,14,149/- towards stamp duty and Rs.18,825/- towards registration fee, aggregating to Rs.4,32,794/-, which amounts to guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal), Rules, 1989, as amended in 1993 (for short, Rules, 1989). Respondent No.1 was placed under suspension. The Vigilance Commissioner forwarded the representation to the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) with a request to conduct a regular enquiry into the allegations. After conducting regular enquiry, the Director General of ACB sent a final report to the Government. Basing on the report of the ACB, regular enquiry was ordered and the same was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) and the same was numbered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.19 of 1997.
4. It is further contended that challenging the notice issued by the TDP, respondent no.1 filed O.A.No.4733 of 1997 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.1998. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, respondent No.1 filed AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 3 W.P.No.12442 of 1999 and a he Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.11.2003 disposed of the said writ petition with an observation that it is open for the Government to pass appropriate orders keeping in view of the fact that the employee has retired from service and further given liberty to the respondent No.1 to challenge the final order of the Government that may be passed and also the jurisdiction of the TDP to initiate action.
5. Thereafter, the Government, on due consideration of TDP report and explanation offered by the respondent No.1, has decided to provisionally impose punishment of withholding of pension and gratuity in full permanently under Rule 9(2)(a) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and accordingly, issued show- cause notice dated 06.12.2005. The respondent No.1 submitted detailed explanation to the show-cause notice on 06.03.2006 and not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent No.1, the Government issued order vide G.O.Rt.No.1149, dated 11.08.2006 imposing punishment of withholding of pension and gratuity in full permanently.
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 4
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2006, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6614 of 2006 and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.08.2007 allowed the O.A., and set aside the G.O.Rt.No.1149, dated 11.08.2006 and directed the petitioners herein to pay full pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits to the respondent No.1 within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2007 in O.A.No.6614 of 2006, the present writ petition is filed.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for petitioners had contended that the Tribunal erroneously interfered with the order of TDP and in the process, it had re- appreciated and reconsidered the entire evidence, which is impermissible. It is further contended that the scope of enquiry of the Tribunal is limited to examining whether or not the procedure enumerated in holding of enquiry has been duly complied with or not. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has undertaken detailed enquiry including examination of AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 5 evidence as if sitting as appellate authority, which is impermissible and contrary to settled principle of law.
8. It is further contended that before the Tribunal, as many as seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1/ charged officer, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. It is further contended that the TDP had conducted a detailed enquiry and on due appreciation of evidence and material placed on record has came to conclusion that the respondent no.1 is guilty of the charge framed against him. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have re-examined and re- considered the evidence and on this ground alone, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
9. It is further contended that the Tribunal on improper appreciation of oral and documentary available on record came to erroneous conclusion that respondent No.1 has not committed any misconduct and that the charge levelled against him is not at all proved and finding him guilty for the misconduct covered by the charge is bad under law. Learned Government Pleader finally AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 6 prayed to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had contended that Tribunal has rightly came to conclusion that the respondent No.1 is not guilty of any misconduct and that the charge levelled against him is also not proved. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly found fault with the enquiry conducted by TDP on due appreciation of the evidence placed on record. He further contended that Tribunal on detailed examination of evidence has rightly allowed the writ petition and has recorded cogent reasons for its conclusion. He finally contended that writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration:
11. Perusal of the record would disclose that respondent No.1 was charged with the corrupt practices and abuse of his official position and undervaluing the documents while he was working as District Registrar of Assurances, Ranga Reddy district during AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 7 the years 1994 and 1995 and thereby caused loss of Rs.4,32,794/- to the exchequer. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the ACB authorities and basing on the report of the ACB, regular enquiry was conducted and the same was referred to TDP.
12. The Tribunal has conducted detailed enquiry into the charge framed against the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 has also participated in the enquiry. In the enquiry before the TDP, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent no.1, he himself was examined as DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. The Tribunal on detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has came to conclusion that the respondent No.1 was guilty of charge framed against him. It is relevant to refer to paragraph-15 of the report of TDP, wherein a categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal as under:
"From the evidence placed by the Prosecution both oral and documentary and also evidence placed by the defence both oral and documentary and the circumstances and preponderance of probabilities appearing in this case, the AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 8 respondent No.1 was indulging in corrupt practices, thereby reduced the rate of stamp duty by accepting the bribes and thus, caused loss to an extent of Rs.4,32,974/- to the exchequer."
13. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22.08.2007 would disclose that the Tribunal has undertaken detailed re-appreciation of the evidence and came to conclusion that respondent No.1 was not guilty of the charge levelled against him.
14. Now, the point for consideration is whether the Tribunal is empowered to conduct enquiry and re-examination of entire evidence and substitute its opinion with that of TDP ?
15. The TDP, on detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has come to conclusion that respondent no.1 is guilty of charge framed against him by clear and acceptable evidence placed by the prosecution on record within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 framed under the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 as amended in 1993. The Tribunal while re-appreciating the entire evidence has come to conclusion that vide G.O.Rt.No.1149, dated AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 9 11.08.2006, by which the pension and gratuity of the respondent no.1 was withheld in full permanently is unsustainable and thus, set aside the same and further directed the appellant herein to pay full pension and gratuity and other retiral benefits to the respondent No.1.
16. It is relevant to refer to the observations made by the TDP, which read as under:
(i) Clarification for point No.1: Stamp duty has to be calculated at the rates prevailing on the date of execution of the document. Hence, the market value of the property as on the date of execution of the documents shall be taken into consideration for assessing the stamp duty leviable, but not on the date of the transaction. Hence, the values prevailing in the year 1981 are not applicable to the documents executed in the year 1995.
(ii) The market value of the entire property sold shall be taken into account for assessing the value of the document, but not the plotted are alone. It is immaterial for the vendor whether the purchaser gifts away some property to the local authority or otherwise. Hence, this cannot be said to be a valid ground for assessing the plotted area only for the purpose of stamp duty. Mentioning all the above facts, P.W.2 gave a letter to the Inspector, ACS, Hyderabad Range on 30.07.1996 which letter AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 10 is scribed by P.W.2 and duly signed by him and the said letter is Ex.P2.
(iii) As per the evidence of P.W.2 which I have discussed above, the market value of the entire property sold shall be taken into account for assessing the value of the document, but not the allotted area alone as was considered by the C.O., in the above case while registering the documents pertaining to H.Nos.198, 199, 200, 202, 203 and 204. The C.O. in the above case did not follow any rules or the G.Os. issued by the Government of A.P. from time to time in respect of registration and stamp duty.
17. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal would disclose that the Tribunal has set aside the G.O.Rt.No.1149, dated 11.08.2006 mainly on the ground that because a quasi judicial authority committed an error in the judgment, it cannot be a circumstance to infer that an order is vitiated by mala fide intentions or a product of extraneous reasons or considerations. The Tribunal further observed that as per settled principle of law that Basic Value Register does not have any statutory sanction and by following the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ponnavolu Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar, Hayatnagar and AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 11 others 1, the Tribunal further observed that under the Land Acquisition Act, when larger extents of land were purchased for converting into house sites, certain percentage of site has to be excluded which is intended for roads and other amenities and the value of the whole extent cannot be taken into account and further observed that whether same principles can be applied while deciding the matter under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act is not a debatable point. The Tribunal further observed that the Government has not preferred the appeal against the order of the respondent no.1 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, where under the market value was reduced from Rs.150/- per square yard to Rs.98/- per square yard.
18. It is well settled principle that Tribunal as well as High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising judicial review cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate forum unless the findings of the Enquiry Officer are arbitrary or perverse.
1 AIR 1992 AP 198 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 12
19. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether the Tribunal has power to modify the penalty awarded by the competent authority on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved, at paragraph-27 of the judgment, held as under:
"27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the 2 (1989) 2 SCC 177 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 13 competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
20. By observing thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the penalty and substitute its own opinion with that of the competent authority and further, the Tribunal cannot step into the shoes of Inquiry Officer if the penalty imposed by the Inquiry Officer is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts, it is clear that the scope of interference by Tribunal is very limited and it is not permissible for the Tribunal to re- examine or reassess the adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence.
21. In B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would 3 1995 (6) SCC 749 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 14 appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that 'judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.'
22. It is apt to refer to Rule 3 (1) & (2) of the A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which relates to maintaining integrity, devotion to duty and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant and reads as follows:
"Rule. 3. General:
(1) Every Government employee shall be devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety.
(2) No Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government.
AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 15
23. In the case on hand, it is alleged that the charged officer in abuse of his official position, undervalued the documents by decreasing the market value of the lands without following the established rules and the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. The TDP, basing on clear and acceptable evidence placed before it, concluded that the charged officer is guilty of the charge framed against him and was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1989, as amended in 1993.
24. The Tribunal interfered with the order passed by the TDP on the ground that some extent of land has to be deducted towards development and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the charged officer in reducing market value of the land from Rs.150/- per square yard to Rs.98/- per square yard by relying upon the judgment of Ponnavolu Sasidar (1 supra). The issue on hand relates to reduction of stamp duty by the charged officer while entertaining and registering sale deeds between two individuals. It is not the case of the charged officer that vendor executed the sale deed by deducting certain portion of land towards development area, out of total AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 16 land conveyed to the vendee. Therefore, when there is no deduction of portion of land, the charged officer ought not to have reduced the stamp duty on the ground of development charges.
25. It is settled principle that deduction of development charges (about 1/3) is one of the factors to be considered while determining market value by the Land Acquisition Officer where land is acquired by the State for the purpose of housing project, since part of the land has to be utilized for roads, open spaces, amenities etc. However, if the land is acquired for the purpose of railway line, road widening, the question of deduction of development charges does not arise, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.R.nagaraja Shetty v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer 4 and Nelson Fernandes v. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer 5.
26. It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nemichand 4 (2009) 11 SCC 75 5 (2007) 9 SCC 447 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 17 Damodardas and another 6, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"16. ...Therefore, there cannot be the same market value for the different lands while determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and as observed hereinabove, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. ..."
27. As discussed above and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (4 supra), rates mentioned in the Basic Value Register cannot be considered for determination of compensation payable for the land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments categorically held that rates mentioned in Ready Reckoner/Basic Value Register are specifically meant for the purpose of collecting of stamp duty. Therefore, the principle of deduction of development charges while collecting the stamp duty for registration cannot be applied.
28. In view of above discussion and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the reliance placed by the Tribunal in Ponnavolu Sasidar (1 supra) is completely misplaced and has no 6 (2022) 14 SCC 60 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 18 application to the present case. In Ponnavolu Sasidar (1 supra), the question that fell for consideration before the erstwhile High Court of A.P., was whether the document can be referred to the Collector under Section 47 of the Stamp Act without holding any enquiry. The Court on examining scope and purport of Section 47 of the Stamp Act and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (for short, 'Rules, 1975') has held that it is incumbent on the part of the registering authority to form a belief as envisaged by Section 47-A of the Stamp Act only after holding an enquiry in whatever form it may be, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1975 before making reference under Section 47 of the Act to the Collector. In the said case, the registering authority made reference to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act without holding any enquiry and thus, the reference made by the registering authority was declared as illegal. In the present case also, the charged officer did not follow the procedure while reducing the market value from Rs.150/- per square yard to Rs.98/- per square yard, which is per se not in AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 19 conformity with Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal basing on the judgment of Ponnavolu Sasidar (supra) is erroneous and unsustainable.
29. Further, from the record, it is evident that the charged officer did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 47-A of Stamp Act, while passing orders reducing stamp duty from Rs.150/- per square yard to Rs.98/- per square yard, and this aspect is clearly and elaborately discussed by the TDP in its findings.
30. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chief Revenue Controlling Officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration and others v. P.Babu 7, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"18. Under Section 47-A(1) and under Section 47-A(3), if the Registering Authority has reason to believe that the instrument of conveyance did not reflect the correct market value of the property, then the Registering Authority has the power to refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of the property and the Collector, on reference, under Section 47-A(1), may determine the market value of such property in accordance with the procedure 7 2025 SCC Online SC 42 AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 20 prescribed. Enquiry by the Registering Authority is a pre-condition for making reference to the Collector for determination of market value of the property. The determination of market value without Notice of hearing to parties is liable to be set aside. ..."
31. Therefore, Section 47-A of the Stamp Act contemplates detailed procedure to be followed by the Collector, while enhancing/reducing the stamp duty and has to record evidence of parties etc. Admittedly, in the present case, no such mandatory procedure has been followed.
32. It is appropriate to note that the TDP on elaborate examination of both oral and documentary evidence has come to conclusion that respondent No.1 was guilty of charge framed against him and also recorded cogent reasons for its findings. However, the Tribunal has re-appreciated the entire evidence and substituted its opinion with that of the TDP, which is impermissible and contrary to settled principles of law and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra.
33. In view of the above discussion and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed an error in re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its views AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 21 with that of the TDP contrary to settled principles of law and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable and same is liable to be set aside.
34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6614 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 07.03.2025 KKM AKS,J & LNA,J W.P. No.14591 of 2008 22 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.14591 OF 2008 Date: 07.03.2025 Kkm