Judgment :- The respondent/Inspector General of Registration framed a charge against the petitioner stating that the petitioner, while serving as Sub Registrar in Thiruvotriyur in 1992, had registered 33 documents without sending them for field inspection and thereby contravening the instructions of the respondent issued in proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, had caused loss of revenue to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,01,305/- by way of deficit Stamp Duty and Registration fees. For the said lapse and financial loss caused by the petitioner, the Inspector General of Registration/respondent herein, who is the disciplinary authority, instituted disciplinary action against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules. The petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, submitted a detailed explanation denying all the charges. Disagreeing with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was held and before the enquiry officer, the petitioner deposed that the proceedings issued by the respondent in No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, were not received in the office of the Sub Registrar and therefore, the instructions conveyed in the said proceedings could not be followed. The enquiry officer, after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties, came to the conclusion that the proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, was not received in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruvotriyur. Therefore, the instructions conveyed to visit the site, where the building is situated, so as to value the site as well as building, could not be done. The enquiry officer, in his findings, having found the petitioner not guilty of charge levelled against him, finally, recommended to drop the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that there are provisions under the Stamp Act to recover the loss of revenue caused by the petitioner by means of invoking the provision under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the enquiry officer has recommended for dropping all the proceedings on the ground that there are provisions under the Stamp Act to recover the loss of revenue by means of initiating action under Section 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect by his proceedings No.14322/B4/93, dated 07.09.98. Since the said imposition of punishment is heavily affecting the petitioners promotion as well as his pensionable benefits, he has challenged the said impugned punishment by way of filing O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. In his further submission, it was contended that the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration in his proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, had not reached the office of the petitioner and therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have accepted the recommendation of the enquiry officer to drop the proceedings, since the enquiry officer also has recommended to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of loss of revenue under Section 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act. Since the disciplinary authority has unilaterally imposed the punishment ignoring the findings of the enquiry officer, it was contended that the impugned punishment cannot stand to any good reason and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner, while serving as Sub Registrar, had registered 33 documents and returned to the parties without subjecting any of them to field inspection by the District Registrar, which is totally contrary to the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Registration in his proceedings No. 70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89. The default committed by the petitioner has caused huge loss of revenue to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,01,305/- by way of deficit Stamp Duty and Registration fees. The Inspector General of Registration, having seen the lapse and loss caused to the State exchequer, being the disciplinary authority, thought fit to issue charge memo calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and after receipts of the explanation from the petitioner and being not satisfied with the same, ordered for enquiry and the enquiry officer after enquiry, by affording all opportunities, submitted his report with a recommendation to drop proceedings, so as to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act for the purpose of recovering the loss of revenue, but as the respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, the disciplinary authority, has rightly passed the impugned punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect by his proceedings dated 07.09.88. Therefore, it was further argued that the petitioner, who was working all along as Sub Registrar in Registration Department, was having knowledge about the circulars issued by the respondent, more so the circular dated 19.10.89 and another circular dated 23.10.89, directing to state the value of the site as well as the buildings separately in their report to the District Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of not having received the proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89 issued by the Inspector General of Registration repeating the instructions contained in two earlier instructions mentioned above and on that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The respondent has been issuing several proceedings, like, proceedings No.49233/M1/89, dated 23.10.99, calling upon all the Sub Registrars to state the value of the site as well as the buildings separately in their report to the District Registrar, in case the value of the property exceeded Rs.10,000/-, so that the District Registrar or Assistant Executive Engineer might perform the field inspection according to their prescribed norms. The intention conveyed in the above said proceedings is only to find out the value of the whole property that should be taken into consideration by the Sub Registrar for the purpose of subjecting a document to investigate for the purpose of collecting Stamp Duty from the land and building owners. The intention conveyed in the above said proceedings is only to find out the value of the whole property that should be taken into consideration by the Sub Registrar for the purpose of subjecting a document to investigate for the purpose of collecting Stamp Duty from the land and building owners. In addition to the above proceedings dated 23.10.99, another communication dated 19.10.89 has also been issued by the Inspector General of Registration for the same purpose, but the petitioner pleading ignorance to the fact that she was unaware of the instruction to state the value of the site as well as the building separately in her report to the District Registrar, cannot be easily accepted, for the simple reason that the petitioner has been serving as Sub Registrar from 1991 and everyday registering innumerable documents and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has not received the document in question, namely, proceedings No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, since the petitioner has admitted her knowledge of the other communications dated 19.10.89 and 23.10.89 issued by the Inspector General of Registration calling upon all the Sub Registrars to state the value of the site as well as the buildings separately in their report to the District Registrar, in case the value of the property exceeded Rs.10,000/-, only for the purpose of enabling the District Registrar to carry out the field inspection for the purpose of collecting the correct stamp duty from the persons registering their documents. 7. Secondly, it is also pertinent to mention that the enquiry officer, in his report, has categorically held that due to the wrongful action of the delinquent, a loss of Rs.58,700/-has been caused to the exchequer. Once the enquiry officer has held the petitioner was guilty of causing loss of revenue for the State, he cannot go back on his own standing and oppose that the receipt of the proceeding No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, has not been proved. 8. The enquiry officer has also wrongly recommended for dropping proceedings in favour of the petitioner without knowing the fact that the department cannot proceed against the petitioner under Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, since the department cannot proceed against its own employees by filing a suit for recovery of loss of revenue caused to the State exchequer. As a matter of fact, institution of action under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, after a period of two years to recover the loss of revenue of Rs.58,700/- is not possible. 9. Thirdly, the stand taken by the petitioner, by pleading ignorance of the existing proceedings about mentioning the value of site as well as the building for the purpose of inspection to be carried out by the District Registrar, cannot be acceptable. Even it if is presumed that the petitioner had not received the relevant communication passed by the respondent in his proceeding No.70087/M1/89, dated 18.11.89, there are several communications, which have been received by the petitioner, namely, communication dated 19.10.89 and 23.10.89 directing all the Sub Registrars to mention the value of the site as well as the building for the purpose of inspection to be carried by the District Registrar. 10. Fourthly, the Disciplinary Authority having not satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why the enquiry report cannot be accepted. After the submission of the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority having seen that the circular dated 18.11.89 is the repetition of the earlier instructions found in the previous circulars dated 19.10.89 and 23.10.89, differed with the findings of the enquiry officer, because the enquiry officer submitted two findings that though the petitioner had not received the circular dated 18.11.89, since there were other circulars dated 19.10.89 and 23.10.89 directing the Sub Registrar to mention of the value of the site and building if it exceeds Rs.10,000/-, the case of the explanation of the petitioner could not be accepted. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition does not carry any merit and hence, the same is dismissed. No Costs.