A Sub-Registrar challenged punishment of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect for registering a sale deed on an unstamped GPA without examination or impounding under the Stamp Act. The High Court found charges proved in a properly constituted enquiry and declined to interfere with the quantum of punishment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41890-DB WP No. 22565 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 22565 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. C.V. SUMANA, W/O DIBAG SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT, (ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR), OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 016. R/AT NO. 1130/1131, 5TH CROSS, DEE ENCLAVE, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 092. …PETITIONER
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT
(BY MR. S.R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/07/2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5072/2023 (ANNEXURE-A); B)SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/07/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.5072/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.5072/2023 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner had approached the Service Tribunal with Application No. 5072/2023 for laying a challenge to the order of punishment dated 27.09.2023 handed to her in a disciplinary proceeding. The punishment was withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The said Application having been negatived, she is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the same.
State resists the Petition making submission in justification
NC: 2024:KHC:41890-DB WP No. 22565 of 2024
of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been constructed.
and having perused the Petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
3.1 Admittedly, the subject sale deed was registered on the basis of a registered GPA of the year 1994. The substance of the charge against the Petitioner was that she had registered the subject sale deed without examining the registered /unregistered GPA as to whether stamp duty was duly paid on the said instrument. It hardly needs to be stated that Chapter-IV of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 makes elaborate provisions for ascertaining non-payment of stamp duty on the instruments and prescribes the procedure for the recovery of deficit duty. Section 33 provides for examination of instruments and impounding of unduly stamped ones. Sub-Sections (1) & (2) read as under:
“33. Examination and impounding of instruments .- (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom
any instrument, chargeable in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.
(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in the State of Karnataka when such instrument was executed or first executed:
Provided that.-
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
(b) in the case of a Judge of the High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.”
3.2 Man being what he is, going by the version of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbs (1588 – 1679), the Governments have evolved policies to ensure that what is due by way of stamp duty is not evaded by unscrupulous persons. That is how the provisions of Section 33 and other sections of the Act have been structured by the State Legislature. The text of Sub-Sections (1) & (2)
leaves no manner of doubt that any public official discharging a public function has to ascertain whether any instrument produced before him is duly stamped; if not stamped or unduly stamped, such instrument has to be immediately impounded and matter has to be processed for the recovery of what has remained unpaid duty along with prescribed penalty. This statutory obligation having not been performed, the charges were framed against the Petitioner and they were proved in a properly constituted disciplinary enquiry.
3.3 The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there is absolutely no evidentiary material to implicate his client, is bit difficult to countenance. Petitioner is not a farmer hailing from the rural background or an illiterate. She has years of experience apart from initial days of training/internship. It is not that she is not exposed inter alia to the 1957 Act inasmuch as, day in and day out, this statute along with other is operated in every office of the Sub-Registrar. The registration of sale deed on the basis of subject GPA is not disputed. When any instrument chargeable to duty, comes before the Sub-Registrar, the first thing he has to do is to examine as to whether proper duty has been paid on it. Had it been done, the subject GPAs would have been found wanting in stamp duty and the deficit along
NC: 2024:KHC:41890-DB WP No. 22565 of 2024
with penalty would have been recovered. For that purpose, the employer need not prove anything beyond the registration of the subject sale deed which itself mentions the GPAs in question.
3.4 The last contention that the punishment of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect is much on the higher side, cannot be agreed to. Once the misconduct is proved in properly constituted disciplinary proceeding, ordinarily the punishment to be awarded belongs to the domain of competent authority and Courts & Tribunals cannot interfere in the same subject to all just exceptions. The argued case of the Petitioner does not fit into any of the conventional exceptions. For an onlooker, withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect appears to be on the higher side. However, matter is not that simple. What is due to State by way of duty has to reach it. Otherwise, fraud & fabrications will have free day and Public Exchequer would suffer. Punishment of the kind is intended to serve as a deterrent example to the potential delinquents. No mitigating factors recognized in the realm of Service Jurisprudence have been demonstrated from the record. Viewed from this angle, the punishment awarded is just and proper.
NC: 2024:KHC:41890-DB WP No. 22565 of 2024
In the above circumstances, this petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed,
costs having been made easy.
Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
NR/Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal rightly upheld punishment of withholding three annual increments for registering a sale deed without examining stamp duty on the GPA.
Whether courts can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed after a proved disciplinary proceeding.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. C.V. SUMANA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION)
KRISHNA S DIXIT
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
