As far as apology regarding addressing of the letter to Registrar, DRAT, Kolkata is concerned it can be accepted. Inadvertently he might address the letter to DRAT, Kolkata, but that apology does not absolve him from his responsibility. It has been held in catena of judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that authorized officer has to be very careful in performing his duties, which are judicial in nature, since he is holding enormous power under the SARFAESI Act. It is clear from the Report of the Registrar, DRT, Visakhapatnam that order was uploaded on 27.07.2023. If the Authorized Officer could not download the same, then he could have applied for the copy of the order but no such effort was made. If authorized officer succeeded in downloading the order dated 27.07.2023 on 11.08.2023 then it does not mean that order was not uploaded on 27.07.2023. Before making such an allegation against DRT, authorized officer should have vigilantly ensured the facts, but without verifying the facts, he made a false allegation. Accordingly, when a specific allegation is made by the authorized officer to the effect that said order was not uploaded on 27.07.2023 rather uploaded on 11.08.2023. It is a case of his irresponsible and negligent conduct. Registrar, DRT, Visakhapatnam has specifically stated that the order was uploaded on 27.07.2023.
