Hardial Singh vs State of Punjab and others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the validity of his suspension order passed by Respondent No. 1.

The Petitioner claims that he has excellent record of service. In June 1988, he was posted as Tehsildar, Ropar. He was also acting as Sub-Registrar under the provisions of Indian Registration Act while performing the duties of Tehsildar. The Respondent No. 2 issued instructions as contained in letter dated December 29, 1988 directing the Sub-Registrars not to register sale deeds below the price determined in the statement appended to the letter. The prices were determined on the recommendation of the Chandra Committee Report. The Petitioner claimed that the alleged instructions are void abinitio being contrary to the statutory provisions of Sections, 21, 23, 27, 32 and 34 of the Indian Registration Act and of the statutory provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. In his capacity as Sub-Registrar, he was not required to re-assess the value of the property and direct the executants to pay the stamp duty according to the valuation determined by him.

Written statements have been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 maintained that the Petitioner had caused loss to the Government by registering sale deeds at the rate less than the rate approved by the Board. The Petitioner was suspended keeping in view the serious nature of the charge.

Respondent No. 2 admitted the issuance of instructions contained in letter No. 942/HRC dated December 29, 1988 and maintained that these are perfectly valid. It was stated that the Petitioner registered twenty seven sale deeds at the rates less than the rates approved by the Board which was constituted as per Government letter No. 24/90/84 ST-2/2834 dated May 13, 1988. The rates were fixed by the Petitioner acting as Sub Registrar and he submitted these rates before the constituted committee and got these rates approved. He could not challenge the approved rates as these were approved at his recommendation. By registering sale deeds at the rate lower than the rates approved by the Board, the Petitioner caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,36,664.00.

The Petitioner''s counsel contended that validity of such type of instructions fixing the prices of the property for registration of sale deeds was not upheld by the Bombay High Court. He was performing quasi-judicial functions and if he refuses to register a document that order was appealable. These instructions are not under the provisions of any Act and he was not bound to follow them. I do not want to express any opinion on the contention raised in this case at this stage. The order of suspension was passed under Rule 4 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short the rules) read with Rule 4 of Punjab Tehsildar (Class II) Service Rules, 1984. Order passed under Rule 4 of the rules is appealable under Rule 15(i) of the rules before the Appellate; Authority-specified in Rule 16 of the rules. Rule 17 of the rules provides the limitation within which the appeal is to be filed. Rule 18 of the rules deals with the form and content of the appeal. Rules 19 provides for consideration of the appeal. Under Rule 21, there is a provision for review of an order. The Petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy by way of appeal under the rules which he has not availed of and. I do not think it a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction when an equally efficacious remedy by way of appeal was available but was not availed of. The Petitioner, if he so chooses, can file an appeal against the order of suspension and if it is so presented, the Appellate Authority will entertain it and dispose of the same on merits. The writ petition is dismissed.