THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.25104 of 2007 Date: 12-12-2007. Between 1. Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. … Petitioners and B.V.Dhananjaya, District Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.25104 of 2007 Oral Order: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for petitioners and Sri R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order in O.A.No.5713 of 2007, dated 10-10-2007, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), wherein and whereby the punishment, as imposed by respondent No.2-disciplinary authority, of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect, which is admittedly minor punishment, was set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The respondent herein worked as District Registrar, Ongole in two spells -- in the first spell from 27-5-1999 to 10-11-2003 and in the second spell from 29-4-2006 to 31-5-2007 totalling 5 ½ years. A sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Parchur for registration on 07-11-1996. As the party did not agree for the adoption of market value, it was referred to the District Registrar, Ongole for determination of market value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. But, the District Registrar, Ongole has not taken any action till 29-01-2007 i.e., until the receipt of notice in Writ Petition No.1753 of 2007. This Court on 01-3-2007 directed the District Registrar, Ongole to appear before the Court and explain the circumstances under which he passed the order. After his appearance, the writ petition was allowed on 08-3-2007 directing the respondents therein to process the document presented by the petitioner within a period of three weeks and imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- for inordinate and unexplained delay in processing the document. Thereupon, the disciplinary authority issued a charge memo on 17-6-2007 under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) for which a reply was given by the delinquent officer. Not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority by order dated 25-8-2007 modified the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect as that of ‘stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect’. Challenging the same, the respondent therein filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its impugned order, dated 10-10-2007, set aside the punishment on the sole ground that there was a vagueness in the charge and that the charge was neither with respect to misappropriation of amounts or any loss caused and the O.A., was accordingly allowed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the disciplinary authority. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for petitioners contended that though the charge memo was issued under Rule 20 of the Rules, but a minor punishment has been imposed on the respondent and that under two spells the respondent worked as District Registrar, Ongole for a total period of 5½ years and it is not in dispute that the document was kept pending for 10 long years in the District Registrar’s office, Ongole when it was referred by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur for determination of market value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He also contended that similar charge memos were also issued in respect of the District Registrars who worked during the total period of 10 years. He further contended that there is no vagueness in the charge in view of the fact that admittedly the respondent worked as District Registrar, Ongole for total period of 5½ years. Therefore, there was dereliction of duty in not passing orders on the reference made by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur. Hence, the question of misappropriation of amounts or loss caused to the Government may not be a relevant factor for setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent contended that the charge memo was issued under Rule 20 of the Rules, but, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted on the respondent and in the first instance, major penalty was imposed and thereafter, it was converted into a minor penalty and that with a view to see that the respondent will not get any promotion charge memo was issued and the Tribunal has rightly set aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. In other words, his contention is that a regular departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted under Rule 20 of the Rules. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. In two spells, as pointed out earlier, the respondent worked as District Registrar, Ongole for more than 5½ years i.e., in the first spell from 27-5- 1999 to 10-11-2003 and in second spell from 29-4-2006 to 31-5- 2007. Admittedly, a reference was made by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur to the District Registrar, Ongole under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on 30-11-1996 for determination of market value. No orders have been passed by the District Registrar, Ongole on the said document from 06-12-1996 to 05-02-2007. Therefore, the purchaser filed a writ petition before this Court, wherein the respondents therein were directed to process the document within a period of 3 weeks and imposed Rs.10,000/- towards costs. Then, the disciplinary authority issued a charge memo on 17-6-2007 for which the respondent gave a representation. As the said representation was not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. No doubt, stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. But, at the same time, the disciplinary authority by issuing an erratum on 25-8-2007 modified the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect as that of ‘stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect.’ Therefore, the said punishment amounts to a minor penalty for which the disciplinary authority need not conduct any regular departmental enquiry. It is settled law that the Tribunal ought not to have sit over in an appeal to consider the merits of the case unless and until the said punishment is apparently perverse and found to be arbitrary. 7. As seen from the articles of charges framed against the delinquent officer, it is stated in the said charge thus: “That, you Sri B.V.Dhananjaya, former District Registrar, Ongole and presently working as District Registrar, Bhimavaram, committed grave misconduct in as much as you have failed to dispose a document U/s 47-A of I.S.Act, 1899 which was referred by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur to the District Registrar & Collector U/s 47-A of I.S.Act, 1899 as pending doct. No.P.49/96 on 30.11.1996 and made inordinate delay i.e from 6.12.96 to 5.2.2007 in disposing the pending document No.P49/96 of SRO, Parchur and thus failed to apply yourself to the disposal of the case referred U/s 47-A of I.S.Act, 1899 to bring out the facts, which resulted in making adverse comments by Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and awarded Rs.10,000/- as costs in W.P. filed by party.” 8. So, from a perusal of the above charge, it indicates that it relating to the period for which the respondent worked as District Registrar, Ongole. No doubt, it is not specifically mentioned in the said charge that from which period, to which period the delinquent officer was worked as District Registrar, Ongole. But, the fact remains that for certain period he worked as District Registrar, Ongole, which is not even disputed by the respondent. So, for keeping the document in office without passing any orders on the reference made by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur, clearly amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the delinquent officer. In view of the fact that there was no vagueness in the charge, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for petitioner relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in I.D.Gupta v. Delhi Administration (Delhi)[1], wherein it was held at para 4 thus: “… … … The enquiry would be absolutely necessary if a major penalty was to be imposed. Rule 16 of the Rules, however, provides for the procedure where minor penalty is to be imposed. Rule 16 requires the government to inform the government servant of the proposal to take action against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. … … …” 10. In this case also, no doubt, the charge memo was issued by the disciplinary authority under Rule 20 of the Rules, but, ultimately the final penalty has been imposed under Rule 22 of the Rules, which deals with imposition of minor penalty for which there need not be any regular departmental enquiry. 11. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for petitioners that similar charge memos have also been issued to the other delinquent officers who worked during that period of 10 years. Therefore, there is no discrimination shown by the disciplinary authority. 12. The question of misappropriation of amounts or loss caused to the Government may not be a relevant factor in disciplinary proceedings where it was shown a clear dereliction of duty as the document, which was referred to by the Sub-Registrar, Parchur to the District Registrar, Ongole under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of market value was kept pending for 5½ years. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent-delinquent officer and therefore, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the minor penalty. We do not find any apparent illegality or perversity in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority. In such cases, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the said punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 12th December, 2007. Ak [1] 1973 (2) S.L.R. 1