APHC010509132021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) S THURSDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NOS: 2120 OF 2021 AND 594 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 2120 OF 2021 Between: Tirlaka Koteswara Rao, S/o Late Subba Rao aged 63 Retired Assistant District Registrar, R/o C/o K.T. Naidu 91-120/5,5th lane Venkataramana colony, Guntur 522004 years Occ. ...Petitioner AND . 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Regn-1) Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522 503 2. The Director and Inspector General of Registration Eedupugallu, Krishna District 521114 3. DIG of Registration and stamps, Z.P Compound, Nagarampalem Guntur 522 006 4. D I G of Registration and stamps, Vijayawada and stamps ...Respondents praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to declare that the action of the respondent Nol in issuing the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may p impugned order G.ort No. 1167 Dt. 19-11-2015 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently I. set aside the punishment of 20 percent cut in pension permanently besides the order of recovery of Rs.4,15,286 and II. further to direct the respondent No 3 to release the withheld amount of Rs.53,755 which is in contravention of impugned G.O.Rt.No. 1167 Revenue (Vig-11) Department dt19-11-2015 III. to sanction full pension and IV. to direct the respondents to release withheld sum of Rs.4,15,286 along with 18 percent interest. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to sanction full pension, refund the Rs. 4,15,286/- and also Rs. 53,755/- withheld from his D.C.R.G. and reimburse the arrears of pension, including the 20% pension already deducted from 19-11-2015, by suspending G.O.Rt.No.1167 Revenue (Vig II) Dept. dtd. 19-11-2015, pending disposal of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMARA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I APHC010584212022 WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 594 OF 2022 Between: Tirlaka Koteswra Rao, S/o, late Subba Rao, aged 63 years, Occ. Retired Assistant District Registrar, R/o.C/o. K.T.Naidu 91-120/5, 5th lane Venkataramana colony, Guntur 522 004 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary Revenue (Regn-1) Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522 503 2. Director and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Eedupugallu, Krishna District 521 144 3. D I G of Registration and Stamps, Z.P. Compound, Nagarampalem, Guntur 522 006 4. D 1 G of Registration and Stamps, Vijayawada,Krishna District-520001 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for notional promotion as district Registrar and as Deputy Inspector General on par with his immediate junior K.Satyanrayana Rao. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMARA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Common order: 10APHC010466582021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB [3311] Thursday, the tenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition A.P.(A.T.) No.2120 of 2021 fO.A.No.1877 of 2018) & Writ Petition A.P.(A.T.) No.594 of 2022 (O.A.No.462 of 2019) Between: ...Petitioner Tirlaka Koteswara Rao S/o late Subba Rao and ...Respondents State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1 .Amara Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: I.G.P. for Services I The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (A.T) No.594 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in these two writ petitions is one and the same and the subject matter is interlinked, and therefore, both the writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.2120 of 2021: This writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.1877 of 2018. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.).No. 2120 of 2021. 2. The writ petition is filed to declare the impugned order issued by the respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.1167 (Revenue (Vig-ll) Department) dated 19.11.2015 is arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the punishment of 20 percent cut in pension permanently besides the order of recovery of Rs.4,15,286/- and further to direct the respondent No.3 to release the amount of Rs.53,755/- withheld in contravention of impugned G.O.Rt.No.1167, dated 19.11.2015, to sanction full pension to direct the respondents to release withheld sum of Rs.4,15,286/- along with 18 percent interest. 3. W.P.No.594 of 2022: Subsequent to filing O.A.No.1877 of 2018 (re-numbered as W.P.No.2120 of 2021), this writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.462 of 2019. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.).No. 594 of 2022. The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for notional promotion as District Registrar and as Deputy Inspector General on par with his immediate junior K.Satyanrayana Rao and grant such other relief as deemed fit.. 4. 3 BSBJ W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (AT) No.594 of 2022 The case of petitioner in W.P.No.2120 of 2021 is briefly as 5. follows: The petitioner served as a government officer in the Registration Department from 1995 until his retirement in 2013, rising from Probationary Sub-Registrar to District Registrar. The disciplinary case against him relates to his tenure between 1995-1999 as Sub-Registrar at Nallapadu, where he registered 23 documents based on verification certificates issued by superior officers. The core allegation is that these documents used stamps bearing pre-April 1995 dates to avoid higher duty rates implemented from 01.04.1995, allegedly causing loss of revenue of Rs.4,15,286/-. a. b. The following charge was framed by the respondent No.2 in Memo No. X/25758/1995 dated 01.06.1998: “Article 1: That the said Sri T.Koteswara Rao, while working as Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, Guntur District during the 27-05-1995 to 22-03-1996 registered document Nos. 186, 187, 234, 660 to 663, 852, 857, 863 to 865, 858, 866 to 868, 875, 876, 881 to 883, 888 to 889 of 1995 without verifying the date of purchase of stamps sold by A.Ramachandra Rao, Sri Rama Rao, Sri A.S. Reddy, Sri B.B.Reddy, Stamp venders, Guntur as required in Inspector General of Registration & Stamps Instructions vide Memo No.MV.1/5000/92, dt.26-07-1993 and 27-08-1993. In the preliminary enquiry it was prime-fade established that the Stamp Venders have sold the stamps used for the above documents with ante-date to facilitate the parties to draft documents with ante-date in order to evade payment of stamp duty on the revised market values which have come into force 4 BSBJ W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (AT) No.594 of 2022 w.e.f.1.4.95. An account of selling stamps with ante-dates and Sri T.Koteswasra Rao registering the documents without verifying the date of selling of stamps, Government sustained a loss of revenue Rs.4,15,286/-.” The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.09.1998 denying the charge, but the respondent No.3 was not satisfied with the explanation and ordered an enquiry in the matter. c. d. The charge memo, dated 01.08.1998, suffers from fundamental flaw. The Inspector General's instructions (Memo No.MV. 1/5000/92 dated 26.07.1993) or the circular memo No. GS01/13325/1995, dated 06.05.2995, did not require Sub-Registrars to physically verify stamp vendors' registers - a task rendered impossible since these registers were centralized in custody with the District Registrar on 31.03.1995 as per procedure. The charge is not in consonance with the instructions of the respondent No.2 contained in Memo No. MV1/5000/92 dated 26.07.1993, as the Sub Registrar is not expected to leave his place and verify sale registers and stock registers of the Stamp Vendors at other places in the state which are situated outside his jurisdiction viz Guntur and Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. But the Sub Registrar should obtain the verification certificates from the place of vending of ante dated stamps to safeguard Government revenue which he did follow. e. f. He neither violated the instructions of the I.G. of R & S, A.P. Hyderabad mentioned in the Memo No.MV1/5000/92 Dt.26-07-1993 nor caused loss of Revenue of Rs.4,15,286/-. In fact there were no instructions in the above memo to the Sub Registrars to verify the Stamp Vendors' Registers as to the correctness and genuineness of the 5 BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P(A.T) No.594 of 2022 date of purchase of stamps, if any document presented for Registration bearing stamp duty with date on or before 31.03.1995. The new market values came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and as per the above memo all the Sub Registrars had submitted the Stamp Vendors Registers to the District Registrar, Guntur, after closing and attesting in the stamp vendors' registers on 31.03.1995. The District Registrar, Guntur in turn should attest closure entry in the Stamp vendors' Registers and retain them in his office for preservation so as not to give any scope for tampering with the stamp Vendor's Registers. Therefore, no Sub- Registrar can verify the Stamp Vendor's Registers to ascertain the date of purchase of stamps, since all the Stamp Vendors' Registers were in the custody of the District Registrar, Guntur. Hence, the charge framed against the applicant, is irregular, invalid and unlawful. The office at Nallapadu became operational only on 01.05.1995, making verification of pre-existing stamps impracticable. The petitioner strictly followed protocol by obtaining verification certificates from three authorized officers: Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Guntur, by name, B.Yanadaiah, Assistant District Registrars, Guntur, by names K.Babu Rao and N.Devanand. B.Yanadaiah stated that he issued the verification certificates relying on which the petitioner registered those documents. The disciplinary process suffered from multiple irregularities. The enquiry officer conducted proceedings without examining critical witnesses including the then District Registrar or B.Yanadaiah - the alleged "kingpin" who admitted in preliminary enquiry about tampering with the stamp registers. The stamp vendors' registers, the primary evidence for charges, were unavailable despite the enquiry officer's repeated requests (Lr.No.A1/132/2010 series between 06.10.2011- 07.02.2012). The petitioner met the discriminatory treatment as he g- 1 6 BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (AT) No.594 of 2022 alone faced enquiry, while four similarly placed Sub-Registrars, including B.Yanadaiah (responsible for Rs. 18.81 lakh loss for registering documents with ante dated stamps and also for total loss of Rs.48,68,201/-), were inexplicably excluded. When 10 Sub Registrars, registered documents basing on verification certificates furnished by Joint Sub Registrar-1, District Registrar's office, Guntur and others, charge was framed against all the Sub Registrars but regular enquiry was ordered against 6 Sub Registrars including the applicant herein but excluding 4 Sub Registrars namely B.Yanadaiah, P.Yanadi Rao, & Joint Sub Registrar-1, District Registrar's Office Ranga Reddy. No reasons were furnished for their exclusion from the Regular Enquiry. The timeline reveals extraordinary delays as the incidents from the year 1995 led to charges in 1998, enquiry was completed in 2012, and final order was passed in 2015, two years post-retirement. This inordinate delay violates G.O.Ms.No.679 mandating 3-6 months enquiry timeline. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal ordered (OA Nos.8093/8099 of 2013) quashing identical charges against others emphasizing parity. h. Rs.53,755/- DCRG withholding relates to a release deed where the releasee already paid Rs.50,000 towards duty. No charge was framed on this transaction, and the Collector's notice under Stamp Act Section 41-A confirmed the balance should be recovered from the The penalty of 20% permanent pension cut and Rs.4,15,286/- recovery lacks evidentiary basis. The enquiry officer admits absence of stamp registers yet holds the petitioner responsible. The preliminary enquiry's findings implicating B.Yanadaiah were disregarded. The petitioner relies on judicial precedents holding that findings without evidence violate natural justice. I. releasee. 7 BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (A.T) No.594 of 2022 With regard to W.P.No.594 of 2022, in addition to the case pleaded in W.P.No.2120 of 2021 noted above, it is further contended that the immediate junior of the petitioner was promoted as District Registrar on 21.05.2006 and later as Deputy Inspector General, while promotions to the petitioner were withheld due to these pending proceedings. 6. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that; For the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, due process was followed at every stage. The case is concerned about the petitioner's alleged failure to properly verify stamp papers while serving as Sub-Registrar at Nallapadu during 1995-1996, resulting in revenue loss of Rs.4,15,286/- to the state exchequer. a. Clear instructions were issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps through memos dated 26.07.1993, 20.08.1993, 06.05.1995 and 30.05.1995, mandating strict verification of stamp papers to prevent misuse through ante-dated transactions. Despite these directives, the petitioner allegedly registered documents on ante-dated stamps without proper scrutiny. b. A preliminary enquiry conducted in 1997 established a prima facie case against the petitioner. Regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 1998 under the AP Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991. After due process, including appointment of an Enquiry Officer in 2010 and submission of the enquiry report in 2012, the charges were conclusively proved. c. d. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself at every stage. Based on the enquiry findings and after obtaining APPSC 8 BSBJ W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (A.T) No.594 of 2022 concurrence, the government imposed in 2015 a reduced penalty of 20% permanent cut in pension and recovery of Rs.4,15,286/- which was less severe than the initially proposed 100% pension permanent cut. 0 The disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice. They argue that the petitioner, having been found guilty of misconduct through proper enquiry, cannot now seek to overturn the consequences. The reliefs sought by the petitioner are unsustainable as the impugned orders were passed after following due process of law. e. 8. With regard to W.P. (A.T.) No.594 of 2022 in the counter in addition to reiterating the contents of the counter in W.P. (A.T.) No.2120 of 2021, it is stated as follows; The petitioner's claim for notional promotion is untenable as promotions consider service conduct and integrity. The punishmentwas proportionate to the misconduct, which involved substantial public revenue loss. The courts have consistently denied relief to employees penalized for financial misconduct. The respondents pray for dismissal of the petition, asserting that the impugned orders were passed after following due process of law and in public interest. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented by Ms. S.Samantha reiterated the grounds as stated in the petition. 10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the finding in the impugned order for the reasons as stated therein. 11. Initially, when the instructions were issued to the Sub-Registrars, there is no specific mention that the Sub-Registrars personally and 9 BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (AT) No.594 of 2022 physically should verify the registers to find out the particulars of the purchase of the stamps. Therefore, the petitioner relied on the verification certificates issued by the Joint Sub Registrar regarding the N authenticity of the purchase of the stamps. Moreover, admittedly, B. Yanadaiah, who issued the said certificate also admitted issue of the certificates which were relied on by the petitioner to register the document. If he deliberately or negligently issued the said certificates, without taking any action against him, the petitioner cannot be made to face the enquiry. As rightly contended by the petitioner, it is practically impossible task for a Sub-Registrar to physically go to the office of the District Registrar and verify each and every document before it is registered. As such, the petitioner relied on the verification certificate issued from the authority working in the office of the District Registrar. It is not the contention of the respondents that B.Yanadaiah is not competent to issue any such certificates. Under those circumstances, making the petitioners scapegoat leaving the persons at fault is deprecated. That apart, inordinate delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry is yet another factor which cannot be ignored, since there was huge time gap of about 12 years between framing of charge and appointment of enquiry officer. Of course, no specific prejudice caused to the petitioner in defending the matter due to the delay in holding the enquiry was attributed or stated. The delay is an additional factor in favour of the petitioner while challenging the impugned proceedings. The reduction in the quantum of punishment from the quantum proposed is not a grace when the petitioner was put to face hardship due to the enquiry he faced and resultant punishment. As rightly contended by the petitioner detailed in the grounds of petition, it is a case fit to interfere with the impugned order. 1 ■ •; 10 BS8J W.P.(AT).No.2120 of 2021 & W.P (AT) No.594 of 2022 12. Since promotion is related to merit, just because the petitioner could not get promotion, on setting aside the penalty imposed, he is not automatically entitled to notional promotion. Moreover, Sri K. Satyanarayana Rao who is likely to be affected by the relief sought was not made a party. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for notional promotion cannot be granted and accordingly, W.P (AT) No.594 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, W.P.(A.T.) No.2120 of 2021 is allowed setting aside the order in G.O.Rt.No.1167 (Revenue (Vig-ll) Department) dated 19.11.2015. W.P.(A.T.) No.594 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Regn-1) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522 503 2. The Director and Inspector General of Registration and stamps, Eedupugallu, Krishna District 521114 3. The DIG of Registration and stamps, Z.P Compound, Nagarampalem, Guntur 522 006 4. The DIG of Registration and stamps, Vijayawada, Kirshna District 5. One CC to Sri Amara Rama Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies GSC (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 ORDER WP(AT) NOS. 2120 OF 2021 AND 594 OF 2022 ALLOWING THE WP(AT) 2120 OF 2021 AND DISMISSING THE WP(AT) 594 OF 2022