Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Himmat Singh Bhati has approached this court imploring the order (Annexure-7) dated 09.03.2011 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel being the petitioner's disciplinary authority, imposing upon him a penalty of stoppage of one year annual grade increment with cumulative effect.
(2.) Facts relevant and germane for disposal of the instant writ petition are noted herein below:-
(3.) The petitioner entered services of the respondent Registration and Stamp Department, Government of Rajasthan in the year 1985. He was serving the Department satisfactorily without any complaint whatsoever till the year 2008 when for the first time, a charge-sheet dated 26.06.2008 was served to the petitioner for alleged misconduct committed in the year 2004, while serving on the post of Sub-Registrar, Udaipur. A sale-deed of agricultural land of Meetharamji Temple in village Ayar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur was presented for registration by one Mahant Shri Ramchandra Das before the petitioner, who registered the document on 30.11.2004. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that registration of sale- deed of agricultural land belonging to temple was carried out by the petitioner in flagrant violation of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 as well as the notification dated 10.01.1990 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan. Alongwith the charge-sheet, statement of allegations and memorandum of charge were also served to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. Referring to Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act, he contested the charges claiming that scope of inquiry required to be conducted by the Registering Officer before registering any document is very limited. Validity of title of the land described in the documents presented for registration cannot be gone into by the registering authority. Reference was also given to Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 as per which, the Registering Officers are not required to examine or inquire into validity of the document presented for registration. Reference was also made to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Basant Nahata vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2001 AIR(Raj) 127 whereby, Section 22A of the Registration Act was declared ultra vires and struck down. It was asserted that the notification dated 10.01.1990 issued under Section 22A of the registration Act requiring the Registering Officers to register a document only after satisfying himself that the property in question does not belong to the State Government, local body or temple was impliedly annulled by effect of the above Judgment. The thrust of the petitioner's case in the reply and the writ petition is that with declaration of the main provision (Section 22A of the Registration Act) to be ultra vires, any notification issued therein would per se become null and void and thus, the charge-sheet lacks foundation. A further case is set up in the writ petition that pursuant to the Division Bench Judgment, the Registration Department issued a Circular No.04/2004 intimating all the Registering Authorities that Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 had been declared ultra vires but a note in terms of Rule 39 of the Rules of 1955 should be appended by the Sub-Registrar before registering any such document. The petitioner claims that while registering the disputed document, he appended thereupon, a note in terms of Rule 39 of the Rules in his own handwriting mentioning that the seller claims to be the owner of the property and if eventually the property was found to be of Devasthan/Temple, the responsibility would be that of the seller. The petitioner has further asserted that without considering the legal issues raised by him in the reply, the Disciplinary Authority, Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, in an absolutely mechanical manner, proceeded to appoint the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries as an enquiry officer to conduct inquiry against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer too, without considering the legal objections of the petitioner, proceeded to submit an adverse inquiry report dated 17.11.2009 against the petitioner. Copy of the inquiry report was provided to the petitioner by the Department of Personnel. The petitioner submitted a representation against the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority reiterating the abovementioned legal objections. However, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 09.03.2011 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposing upon him the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. The said order has been placed on record as Annexure-7 and is implored in the instant writ petition.;