Sub-Registrars Aren't Liable For Revenue Loss If Relied On District Registrar's Verification:AP HC

Background Facts

The employee was appointed as Probationary Sub-Registrar in the Registration department and served until his retirement. He was promoted to the rank of District Registrar. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for wrongful registration of 23 documents between 1995 and 1999 when he was working as Sub-Registrar. A charge memo was issued alleging that he registered documents without verifying the date of purchase of stamps sold by stamp vendors.

The stamps were ante-dated to evade payment of stamp duty on revised market values effective from 01.04.1995, causing a revenue loss of Rs.4,15,286/- to the Government. His explanation was not found satisfactory and an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Report held that charges were proved against him. The Government decided to impose 100% cut in pension permanently along with recovery of Rs.4,15,286/-. After consideration, the authority passed an order imposing 20% cut in pension permanently and recovery of Rs.4,15,286/-.

Aggrieved, the employee challenged the order before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to the High Court. Further, the employee also filed writ petition seeking notional promotion as District Registrar and Deputy Inspector General on par with his junior. The Single Judge set aside the punishment order, but dismissed the petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed writ appeal challenging dismissal of his promotion claim. Also the State filed another appeal challenging the setting aside of the punishment order.

It was argued by the employee that the punishment imposed upon him had been set aside by the Single Judge, therefore, there was no occasion for dismissing the petition for seeking notional promotion. It was submitted that the order dismissing his petition should be set aside to that extent.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State that the Single Judge has not taken into consideration that revision of market value of properties was announced by the State with effect from 01.05.1995. It was the duty of the Sub-Registrars to verify stamps of documents sold by stamp vendors and admit only those documents for registration after satisfying themselves about the correctness thereof. It was further submitted that the enquiry report specifically indicted the employee for the malpractice and loss of revenue to the State of Rs.4,15,286/-.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the allegations against the employee were that he permitted registration of documents on the basis of stamps which were ante-dated to facilitate evasion of payment of duty revised with effect from 01.05.1995. It was noted that the enquiry report specifically mentioned that verification certificates were issued by District Registrar. The issue of verification certificates was found to be incorrect, therefore, responsibility fell on District Registrar, who issued the said certificates.

It was further observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the employee was under an obligation to physically verify the record of stamp vendor or could not have registered documents on the basis of verification certificates issued by District Registrar. It was further observed that it is practically an impossible task for a Sub-Registrar to physically go to office of District Registrar each time, verify each and every document before it is registered.

It was noted that there was no allegation of connivance of the employee with District Registrar. It was further noted that no action was taken against District Registrar for issuance of false verification certificates and tampering of entries in Stamp Vendors' Register despite the fact that the enquiry report stated that responsibility rested on his shoulders.

It was observed by the Division Bench that there was extraordinary delay in the proceedings as the incidents related to 1995, charges were framed in 1998, enquiry completed in 2012, and final order was passed in 2015, two years after the employee's retirement. Therefore, the Single Judge correctly set aside the punishment order.

However, no merit was found by the Division Bench in the argument that once the punishment order was set aside, the employee was automatically entitled to notional promotion. It was held that promotion is not a matter of right and there is no question of automatic notional promotion.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, both writ appeals filed by the employee and the State were dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Tirlaka Koteswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Case No. : Writ Appeal No.1185 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No.204 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellant : Samantha Krishna S for Amara Rama Rao

Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Services I