Judgment Govind Mathur, J.—The promotion to the junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 was denied to the petitioner being suffered with minor punishment under the order dt. 18.10.1989 passed by the Collector, Pali and the order dt. 06.07.1990 passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, hence this petition for writ is preferred claiming the reliefs as under:- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the charge-sheet dt. 09.02.1987 and the order dt. 18.10.1989, 03.12.1990 and 20.06.1993 be declared illegal and be quashed: (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the charge-sheet dt. 01.12.1988 and the orders dt. 06.07.1990 Annexure 10 communicated vide order dt. 19.07.1990 be declared illegal and be quashed: (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Junior Scale of R.A.S. Against the vacancies of 1994-95 by ignoring the penalties imposed by them in pursuance of the charge-sheet dt. 09.02.1987 and 01.12.1988 and if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion then he may be given such promotion with all consequential benefits.” 2. During pendency of this petition the order dt. 06.07.1990 has already been set aside by the Governor of Rajasthan while exercising powers under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) therefore, the prayer made under clause (ii) ) has become infructuous, thus this petition for writ is pressed only to the extent it relates to prayer Clauses (i) and (iii). 3. The case of the petitioner as laid in the petition is that under a memorandum dt. 09.02.1987 issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. 3. The case of the petitioner as laid in the petition is that under a memorandum dt. 09.02.1987 issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The petitioner was charged for misconduct as follows:- ßvkjksi uacj&1 vki Jh jkeyky foÓuksbZ] rglhynkj] lgkM+k] ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk mi iath;d dk dk;Z Hkh djrs gSaA Jh dUgS;kyky oYn eksguyky pkScs fu- xaxkiqj }kjk vkjkth uacj 112@6 jdck 4 ch?kk 14 fcLok fdLe eaxjh fcykuke vkcknh dk cspku foØ; i= }kjk Jh Ókadjyky oYn feJhyky] izdkÓkpUnz izgyknjk; oYn feJhyky ukSy[kk fu- xaxkiqj] panzizdkÓk oYn pkaney lq[kyspk fu- jk;iqj ,oa Jherh deyk nsoh iRuh vtqZuyky fla?koh fu- HkhyokM+k dks fnukad 09-10-1986 dks fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k FkkA vki }kjk mi iath;d dh gSfl;r ls mDr nLrkost dk iath;u fnukad 09-10-1986 dks fd;kA mä foØ; i= ds iath;u ls iwoZ uxjikfydk xaxkiqj }kjk muds i= fnukad 01-10-1986 ls vkidks lwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk fd mä vkjkth uxjikfydk xaxkiqj dh gSA blfy;s voSèk Ø; foØ; dks iathc¼ ugha djkosaA bl izdkj vkidks bl ckr dh tkudkjh gks pqdh Fkh fd mä Hkwfe Øsrk dh u gksdj uxjikfydk dh gS fQj Hkh vkius mä nLrkost dks iathc¼ dj fn;k x;kA vki mi iath;d ds vykok Hkw&èkkjd Hkh gSaA Hkw&èkkjd dh gSfl;r ls vkidks fdlh Hkh nLrkost ds iath;u ls iwoZ Hkkjrh; iath;u vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 21 dh ikyuk lEiq"Vr% djokuh pkfg;s Fkh ysfdu bl vkSj Hkh vkids }kjk iath;u ls iwoZ dksbZ è;ku ugha fn;k x;kA blls Li"V tkfgj gS fd vki }kjk izfrdwy i{k dks vuqfpr ykHk nsus gsrq mä nLrkost dk iath;u fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vkius fu;eksa dk mYya?ku dj vius vfèkdkj ,oa in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, vius dÙkZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh cjrh gSA vkidk ;g d`R; nqjkpj.k gSA vkjksi uacj&2 vki Jh jkeyky foÓuksbZ] rglhynkj (mi iath;d) lgkM+k ls mi[k.M vfèkdkjh] xaxkiqj }kjk muds i= fnukad 03-10-1986 ls vkjkth uacj 112@6 jdck 4 ch?kk 14 fcLok Hkwfe dk voSèk :i ls Ø; foØ; ds lacaèk esa tkap fjiksVZ pkghA rn~uqlkj vkidks mä vkjkth ds voSèk fcdko ds ckcr iw.kZ tkudkjh gks pqdh FkhA ,slh nÓkk esa vkidks bl lacaèk esa tkap izfrosnu fHktokrs gq, Li"V funsZÓku izkIr djuk pkfg;s FkkA ysfdu vkius ,slk ugha djds mä voSèk Ø; foØ; ds nLrkost dks iathc¼ djok fn;kA bl izdkj vkius tkucw>dj vius ls mPp vfèkdkfj;ksa ds vknsÓk ,oa funsZÓk dk ikyu ugha dj voKk dh gS tks vuqÓkklughurk gksdj dÙkZO; ds izfr ykijokgh cjrh gSAÞ 4. The petitioner explained his stand for the allegations levelled by reply dt. 23.02.1987 relevant portion of that reads as follows:- ßtgka rd esjh tkudkjh Hkwfe ds LokfeRo ds lacaèk esa gS] rks ;g esjs }kjk iwoZ esa gh Li"V fuosnu fd;k tk pqdk gS fd jktLFkku jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 39 ds vUrxZr esjs }kjk nLrkost dh fofèk ekU;rk ds vkèkkj ij fu"iknd o lEifÙk u gksus ij jftLVªh djus ls bUdkj djuk mä fu;eksa ds vUrxZr xyr gksxkA tgka rd Hkwfeèkkjh gksus ds ukrs Hkkjrh; iaft;u vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 21 dh ikyuk dk gS rks mä fu;eksa ds vUrxZr nLrkost esa iw.kZ C;kSjk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA mä fu;eksa ds vuqPNsn esa lEifÙk dk o.kZu o igpku vafdr dh xbZ gSA vuqPNsn nks esa uxjksa esa xqVksa ds ckjs esa gS ftldk mä nLrkost ls lEcUèk ugha gSA vuqPNsn 3 ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gS] iM+kSl vafdr fd;s x;s gS o mä lEifÙk dk uDÓkk Hkh layXu fd;k x;k gSA tks vkcknh Hkwfe ntZ gksus ls vkoÓ;d FkkA vuqPNsn 4 esa ekufp= o js[kkad Hkh mä nLrkost esa lekfo"V Fkk ,slh fLFkfr esa mä fu;e dh ikyuk iw.kZ:is.k dh xbZ gSA blds lkFk lkFk gh ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd blls izfrdwy i{k dks ykHk ek= iath;u dh dk;Zokgh ls ugha fn;k tk ldrk gS tcfd iath;u ls eqnzkad ,oa iath;u Qhl ds }kjk jkT;fgr voÓ; gqvk gSAÞ 5. The disciplinary authority after providing an opportunity of personal hearing held the petitioner guilty for misconduct and imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect by order dt. 18.10.1989. The appeal as well as the review petition preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected by orders dt. 03.12.1990 and 20.06.1993 respectively. 6. While giving challenge to the orders aforesaid the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that no violation of Sec. 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1908”) is proved against the petitioner, hence he rightly registered the document concerned and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under the order dt. 18.10.1989 is illegal. It is asserted that as a matter of fact the petitioner while discharging duties of a registering authority under the Act of 1908 could have refused to register a document only under a law and not merely on the basis of some information given by the Municipal Board. 7. 18.10.1989 is illegal. It is asserted that as a matter of fact the petitioner while discharging duties of a registering authority under the Act of 1908 could have refused to register a document only under a law and not merely on the basis of some information given by the Municipal Board. 7. In reply, it is urged by counsel for the State that the petitioner despite getting information from the Municipal Board about the dispute of title of the land registered the document that clearly proves the misconduct alleged and, therefore, he was rightly dealt with by a disciplinary authority under the order impugned. An objection is also raised for entertainment of the grievance of the petitioner in present petition at belated stage. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. Before adjudicating validity of the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the respondents for entertaining grievance of then petitioner raised in petition for writ at a belated stage. 10. The present petition was presented on 21.01.1995 giving challenge to the order dt. 18.10.1989 that was affirmed by the appellate authority on 03.12.1990 and by reviewing authority on 20.06.1993. The delay, therefore, in filing the writ petition is of about 18 months. Such a delay in a case of disciplinary action is not material as no right accrued in favour of any third party due to delay caused. Beside that, it is also pertinent to note that on basis of the order of penalty aforesaid the promotion was denied to the petitioner in the year 1994-95 and on knowing about that the petitioner immediately approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition for writ. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the preliminary objection so raised and, therefore, the same is over-ruled. 11. According to counsel for the petitioner the order dt. 18.10.1989 and subsequent orders affirming it deserve to be quashed as under the Act of 1908 the petitioner while discharging the duties of a registering authority was having no alternative but to register the document concerned if there was no violation of any provisions of the Act of 1908 or any other law. 18.10.1989 and subsequent orders affirming it deserve to be quashed as under the Act of 1908 the petitioner while discharging the duties of a registering authority was having no alternative but to register the document concerned if there was no violation of any provisions of the Act of 1908 or any other law. It is asserted by counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner was of violation of the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908 but that was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner under the reply dt. 28.02.1987. The disciplinary authority also under the order impugned dt. 18.10.1989 nowhere found the petitioner guilty for not adhering the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908, therefore, the petitioner could have not been punished merely on the count that he registered the document despite an information from the Municipal Board about some dispute of title of the land. 12. This Court in the case of Smt. Kishni Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in RLR 1990(2) 524, held that the registration of a document cannot be refused if that is not barred under any law. The relevant portion of the judgment referred above reads as follows:- “7. It is clear from a perusal of the various provisions of the Act that the powers of the Sub-Registrar and Registrar have been clearly defined and demarcated by the Act. The Act authorises the Sub-Registrar to refuse to register a document if it is not properly executed or presented or the subject matter of the document lay beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar or Sub-Registrar, as the case may be. The Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a document under Sec. 21 of the Act, if it does not contain the description of the immovable property sufficient to identify the same; under Sec. 23, if a document is not presented within 4 months of the day of its execution; under Sec. 28. The Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a document under Sec. 21 of the Act, if it does not contain the description of the immovable property sufficient to identify the same; under Sec. 23, if a document is not presented within 4 months of the day of its execution; under Sec. 28. if the document is presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property is not situated; under Sec. 32, if the document to be registered is not presented by the person executing it of claiming under the same or by representative or assign of such person under Sec. 35, if the Sub-Registrar is not satisfied about the identify of the person/persons they represented themselves to be, or such a person or persons do not admit the execution of the document, or a person or such persons appear to be minor or lunatic or idiot or if the person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead and his representatives or assigns deny its execution. 8. Rule 39, Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 runs as under: “39. Registering officers not concerned with validity of documents:-Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as under:- (1) that the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him: (2) that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transaction; (3)that the transaction was fraudulent or opposed to public policy; (4) that the executant had not agreed to certain conditions of the document; (5) that the executant was not acquainted with the conditions of the document: (6) that the executant declared that he had been deceived into executing; and (7) that the executant is blind and cannot count. These and such like are matters for decision, if necessary, by competent Courts of law, and registering officers, as such have nothing to do with them. These and such like are matters for decision, if necessary, by competent Courts of law, and registering officers, as such have nothing to do with them. If the document be presented in a proper manner, by a competent person, at the proper office, within the time allowed by law and if the registering officer be satisfied that the alleged executant is the person he represents himself to be, and if such person admits execution, the registering officer is bound to register the document without regard to its possible effects. But the registering officer shall make a note of such objections of the kinds mentioned in grounds (1) to (7) above; as may be brought to this notice in the endorsement required by Sec. 58.” Rule 42 of the Rules said as follows: “Registration to be completed necessarily:- (1)If the executant appears and admits execution and his identity is established, the registration should be completed even though one or both of the parties may, after this stage, desire to withdraw the document from registration. If after admission of execution the executant refuses or neglects to sign the endorsement, the registering officers should not this refusal as prescribed in Sec. 58 of the Act. (2)If after admission of execution and the necessary identification of the parties, the presenter (irrespective of the executant’s action) refuses to proceed or to sign the endorsement, the registration should nevertheless be completed and a note of the refusal to sign endorsed on the document. The document if not claimed should be kept for one month under rule 22 and then sent to the District Registrar.” 9. The Sub-Registrar and the Registrar are the creation of the statute and they draw their authority therefrom. The powers and duties are defined under the Act and Rules. Their statutory functions could not be curtailed by any executive instructions issued by the State Government of any authority. The Sub-Registrar could not refuse to register the sale-deed on the ground that inquiry report had not been received from the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur.” 13. In the instant matter the only allegation against the petitioner was that he registered the document without adhering the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908. The Sub-Registrar could not refuse to register the sale-deed on the ground that inquiry report had not been received from the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur.” 13. In the instant matter the only allegation against the petitioner was that he registered the document without adhering the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908. In explanation the petitioner in quite unambiguous terms stated that description of property and maps as required under Sec. 21 of the Act of 1908 were available on record, therefore, he was having no option but to register the document. The disciplinary authority in the order while imposing penalty upon the petitioner have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner merely on the count that the petitioner registered the document though there was some dispute about the title and information in this regard was given to him by the Municipal Board concerned. I am of the considered opinion that the approach of the disciplinary authority is erroneous as under the Act of 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder a registering authority could have refused for registration of document only if there was any violation of law. The disciplinary authority failed to point out violation of any such law and as such the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner i.e. of stoppage of one annual grade increment is absolutely illegal. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and, therefore, their orders too are bad in eye of law. 14. The respondents denied promotion to the petitioner to junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 only on the count of two minor penalties, reference of those are given in preceding paras. The order dt. 06.07.1990 has already been quashed by the Governor of Rajasthan while exercising powers under Sec. 34 of the Rules of 1958 and the another order dt. 18.10.1989 has already been declared bad in eye of law by this Court as above, as such the respondents are required to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion of the petitioner to Junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 afresh. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order dt. 18.10.1989 passed by the Collector, Pali and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority affirming the order dt. 18.10.1989 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the junior scale of the Rajasthan Administrative Services against the vacancies of the year 1994-95 without taking into consideration the order of penalties dt. 18.10.1989 and the order dt. 06.07.1990. No order to costs.