IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 689 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.2.2009. Ajaib Singh Gondara ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner was serving as a Tehsildar. While being posted at Barnala he registered certain documents. Petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2005. After his retirement, he was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II read with Punjab Civil Services (Penalty and Appeal) Rules on 26.9.2006 for registering a sale deed below the rates fixed by the Collector for the concerned area. Petitioner was asked to submit his reply. Reply filed by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15.6.2007 to the competent authority. It is this report, which is under challenge in the present petition. CWP No. 689 of 2009 -2- The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue regarding the payment of stamp duty is under consideration of the Collector in terms of Section 47-A and till the Collector determines the stamp duty payable, no disciplinary action is warranted against the petitioner. In the writ petition it was not disclosed as to whether the reference was made to the Collector at the time of registeration of the document or on a later date. To find out whether the petitioner has discharged his duties in accordance with law or the reference was only a device to overcome the misconduct vide interlocutory order dated 21.1.2009 counsel for the petitioner was allowed to file a supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated today that though no document could be secured, however, according to his information the reference was made before the retirement of the petitioner but in any case not at the time of registeration of the document. The Enquiry Officer found one charge proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer also recorded a finding that the petitioner registered as many as 18 sale deeds and out of which stamp duty on four sale deeds was found to be correct and for the remaining 13 sale deeds deficient stamp duty was charged, which was less than the rates fixed by the Collector. 17 sale deeds were forwarded to the Collector. Much emphasis is laid on Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act. This section is reproduced as under:- “ 47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with. (1) If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on market value as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value as determined in accordance with the rules made under CWP No. 689 of 2009 -3- this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, after registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of the market value of such property and the property duty payable thereon; and (2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid, and the deficient amount of duty, if any, alongwith interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum on such deficient amount, shall be payable by the persons liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty.” From the perusal of Section 47-A it appears that it is the duty of Registering Officer to charge the stamp duty on an instrument as is fixed under rules and if he finds the same to be deficient, he will register the document and thereafter send the same to the Collector, who is required to determine the market value of the property. In the present case, it has come in the Enquiry Report that 13 documents were found with deficient stamp duty than fixed under rules for those properties. The petitioner in his capacity as Registering Officer registered the same and did not refer these instruments to the Collector for determination under Section 47-A. It was only before his retirement and much after the registeration of the documents that the documents were referred to the Collector perhaps to save his skin. CWP No. 689 of 2009 -4- The determination of stamp duty under such circumstances has nothing to do with the service misconduct of the petitioner. In any case no opinion is being expressed on that basis as it is for the disciplinary authority to formulate its opinion. Since, the petitioner has been served with a notice under Section 8 of Punjab Civil Services Rules for a major penalty, no direction can be issued for quashing the enquiry report or for the release of the retiral benefits at this stage. However, the disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is furnished to the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 2.2.2009 lucky