Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, while working as Sub-Registrar, Grade II at Thalavadi Sub Registration Office, Erode District, was issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the allegation that while working as Sub-Registrar, Komangalam, he accepted a document carrying lesser stamp duty and thereby caused revenue loss to the Government. 2. The charge as framed is challenged, on the sole ground that fixing of lesser stamp duty cannot be construed as loss to the Government, because the Sub Registrar only after receiving the documents can assess the actual value and direct persons to make out the deficit stamp duty, as it was not open to the petitioner to reject the document, because of available remedy of appeal, for reduction of registration charges. 3. The petitioner submitted explanation as noticed herein above and also that the document was submitted for registration by Kalaimagal Sabha through a retired Sub-Registrar. 4. It is the stand of petitioner, that Kalaimagal Sabha had undertaken to pay the deficit stamp duty, on the next day, on the ground that it was not possible for the Sabha to get stamps of more than Two lakhs immediately. 5. Inspite of assurance, the Sabha did not turn up for two months and thereafter the President of the Sabha informed the petitioner, that application had been moved to the Government for getting a special order to pay the reduced registration charges. The request was made that till decision is taken by the Government, no further action be taken. 6. It is the submission of petitioner, that because of the delay in decision by Government, he took immediate action, and did not register the document and wrote to the District Registrar on 29.05.1997, pointing out that an amount of Rs.17,36,456/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Six only), is to be recovered to register the document. 7. It is the stand of petitioner, that delay in taking action was on account of the fact, that the petitioner was told that a special Government Order was going to be passed for accepting lesser stamp duty. 8. The explanation submitted by petitioner was not accepted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. 7. It is the stand of petitioner, that delay in taking action was on account of the fact, that the petitioner was told that a special Government Order was going to be passed for accepting lesser stamp duty. 8. The explanation submitted by petitioner was not accepted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. It is admitted case, that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and that the enquiry was held in accordance with the Service Rules. 9. On appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, the Enquiry Officer held the charge against petitioner to be partly proved. It was pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, that the document was impounded and sent to the District Registrar, Tiruppur, thus, there was no occasion to hold the charge to be fully proved. The petitioner was partly held guilty of negligence on account of delay in taking action, which resulted in proceedings being rendered time barred. 10. The petitioner filed objection to the enquiry report, but without considering the reply, the impugned order of punishment was passed, vide which two increments of petitioner was ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect. 11. The petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed. 12. It is the case of petitioner, that the delay in sending the document was properly explained, that is, that the matter was under consideration with the Government for the reduced payment of registration charges. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the authorities failed to notice that the petitioner had acted bonafide, on the assurance given by the Sabha, that the matter was under consideration with the State Government for reduction of stamp duty, therefore, no negligence could be attributed to the petitioner. 14. It is also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the ground raised by petitioner in defense was not considered, while passing the impugned order. 15. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is not disputed by petitioner, that the document was not properly stamped, therefore, under the law, it was the duty of petitioner to have immediately impounded the document and refer it to for adjudication of penalty and stamp duty payable for such document. 15. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is not disputed by petitioner, that the document was not properly stamped, therefore, under the law, it was the duty of petitioner to have immediately impounded the document and refer it to for adjudication of penalty and stamp duty payable for such document. The act of petitioner cannot be held to be bonafide, as the petitioner withheld the document for more than four months, which helped the Sabha to evade stamp duty, as the limitation for proceeding under the Stamp Act for adjudication had expired. 16. The action of petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be bonafide, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. The action of petitioner prejudiced the right of the State, to prosecute the Sabha for not properly affixing the stamp duty on the document. The petitioner has been held guilty on appreciation of evidence. No illegality has been pointed out in the conduct of the enquiry, nor it has been pointed out whether any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, as it is not disputed that the enquiry was held as per rules and that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. 18. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot reappraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the enquiry officer. 19. The punishment awarded also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge, which may call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 20. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.