Order: These writ petitions have been filed challenging the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 20.01.2010 and 21.01.2010 by the second respondent and served on the petitioner on 27.01.2010. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell are stated hereunder: The petitioner was originally selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Junior Assistant and posted in the second respondent Department on 31.07.1972. Thereafter, he was gradually promoted and finally he was promoted as Registrar and posted as District Registrar, Nagapattinam, where he was last working. He had put in 37 years of service in the Department. While so, just few days prior to his retirement, he was suspended from service. He was issued with charge memo dated 20.01.2010 and 21.01.2010. The charge against him is that he caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.9,768/-in respect of the first writ petition viz., W.P.No.3244 of 2010 and a sum of Rs.8,79,506.10 in respect of the second writ petition viz., W.P.No.3244 of 2010. 3. As far as the charge in respect of the first writ petition is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner instead of levying stamp duty under Article 40A of the Stamp Act, taking into consideration that the document registered by him has to be classified as mortgage with possession, has classified as mortgage without possession, thus causing a loss of Rs.9,768/- to the Department. 4. As far as the charge in the other writ petition is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner instead of valuing the property, which has been registered by him, at Rs.40/-per square feet has valued it at Rs.28/-per square feet. Thus, it is alleged that he has caused loss to the Government. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that (a) The charge memo was issued to the petitioner just five days prior to his retirement in respect of certain charges, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are trivial in nature. (b) Even assuming that the petitioner has undervalued the document, which has been registered by him, the same cannot be the basis for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He has further added that while exercising quasi-judicial power, omitting to levy the stamp duty, may be subject to the supervision of the higher authorities. (b) Even assuming that the petitioner has undervalued the document, which has been registered by him, the same cannot be the basis for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He has further added that while exercising quasi-judicial power, omitting to levy the stamp duty, may be subject to the supervision of the higher authorities. Hence, unless and otherwise, it is said that the petitioner, exercising quasi judicial power, deliberately acted or actuated by mala fide, cannot be served with a charge memo, especially just a few days prior to his retirement. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader relying on the counter affidavit of the second respondent contended that the petitioner has been served with a charge sheet and instead of facing the enquiry, he cannot come to this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further added that the charge memo cannot be quashed by this Court, especially when it has been found that the petitioner has caused loss to the exchequer. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 8. The indisputable facts are that the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo followed by an order of suspension. The charge memo is dated 20.01.2010 and 21.01.2010. As far as the charge made against the petitioner in the first writ petition viz., W.P.No.3244 of 2010 is concerned, the charge against the petitioner is that he has caused a loss to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.9,768/-. The reason being that while registering the document, he classified the document as mortgage without possession and levied stamp duty and registration fee for the same. It is alleged that on scrutiny of the document, it has been found that the document has been classified to be mortgage with possession and stamp duty has to be collected under Article 40A of the Stamp Act. 9. As against the charge in the second writ petition viz., W.P.No.3245 of 2010 is concerned, it is stated that the petitioner instead of valuing the property which has been registered by him at Rs.40/- per square feet has levied stamp duty at the rate of Rs.28/-per square feet. 10. The charges, thus, made against the petitioner are that he has failed to levy stamp duty properly. 10. The charges, thus, made against the petitioner are that he has failed to levy stamp duty properly. This has been found at the time of audit enquiry. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner while exercising his quasi-judicial power under the Stamp Act, even assuming has not been dealt with according to the provisions of the Stamp Act, the same can be set at naught by the superior authorities, since it could be considered as wrong decision taken by the petitioner exercising quasi-judicial power while entertaining a document. Nowhere it has been alleged that the petitioner did so purposefully with motive and for extraneous reasons or considerations. 11. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner while exercising quasi-judicial power, the same cannot be said to be with motive or tainted with mala fide or for extraneous reasons. As stated already, it is not even the case of the second respondent that the petitioner purposefully undervalued the property in order to enrich himself. Therefore, in my considered view, the charge against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 12. That apart, if the Department is not satisfied with the valuation made by the petitioner, nothing prevented the Department from filing an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the respondents that the decision taken by the petitioner in undervaluing the property was taken in an appeal before the higher forum. 13. In the absence of any motive or bad intention, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge memo which has been served on the petitioner, that too just five days prior to his retirement, who has rendered 37 years of service, cannot stand scrutiny before this Court. 14. No doubt when a charge memo has been issued to the delinquent, he cannot run to this Court challenging the charge memo and he has to wait till final orders are passed in the charge memo that has been issued to him. But in the case on hand, the charges which have been dealt with above, will clearly prove that the respondents have not made any allegations that the petitioner purposefully undervalued the property in order to enrich himself. But in the case on hand, the charges which have been dealt with above, will clearly prove that the respondents have not made any allegations that the petitioner purposefully undervalued the property in order to enrich himself. The framing of the charge under Rule 17(b) itself is not proper. This view was taken by the Division Bench in the judgment The Special Commissioner and Vs. N. Sivasamy, which is extracted hereunder: "As rightly pointed out by the applicant, all the charges relate to the exercise of the powers by the applicant as a quasi-judicial authority. We have already referred to the view of the Supreme Court that action taken by a judicial authority should not form the basis for disciplinary action. It is also brought to our notice that the enquiry officer was appointed after a lapse of 32 months from the date of issue of charge memo. Even after the appointment of the enquiry officer, the department has not taken steps to complete the enquiry. Even though there is no stay order by the Tribunal, the enquiry was not proceeded with. We are satisfied that the applicant had been exercising quasi-judicial power as Commercial Tax Officer and assuming that there was any error, the remedy would be by way of appeal or revision as provided in the C.S.T Act and TNGST Act and hence they could not be the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings. Further, there was inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and the same was issued just 7 days before the date of superannuation. Though the alleged lapse occurred in the year 1995 and certain charges related to the period 1993-94, the charge memo was issued on 15-7-97 and served on 23 -7-97, just 7 days before the date of retirement. The contention of the applicant that only with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish, the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored. As rightly stated, if every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers and that misconduct is not coming within the purview of mere error in judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty. Likewise, wrong interpretation of law cannot be ground for misconduct. As rightly stated, if every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers and that misconduct is not coming within the purview of mere error in judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty. Likewise, wrong interpretation of law cannot be ground for misconduct. He may have wrongly exercised his jurisdiction, but that wrong can be corrected in appeal and the same cannot always form basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings for an officer while he is acting as quasi-judicial authority. We have already pointed out that though the applicant filed Original Application No.6284/97 challenging the charge memo dated 15-7-97, admittedly, no stay was granted. Despite the above fact that the department had not proceeded with disciplinary proceedings; there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the department. According to the applicant, he is 67 years of age as on date and had rendered 38 years of service in the department. He had undergone sufferings from mental worry, agony, anguish and hardship for all these years. We are satisfied that there is no need to pursue the charge memo dated 15-7-1997." 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 409, [Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and others]. That is a case where the Revenue Officer, the appellant therein, while exercising quasi-judicial power under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, omitting to levy penalty on an assessee party, has been served with a charge memo saying that "he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant". In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it was wrong decision of issuing charge memo against the officer concerned, while he is exercising quasi-judicial power, in adjudicating the dispute and a wrong decision taken by him even is subject to judicial supervision in appeal and quashed the memo. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 (2) L.L.N. 946 [S.Muthuramu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (represented by its Chief Secretary to Government, Public (Special A) Department), Chennai and another]. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 (2) L.L.N. 946 [S.Muthuramu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (represented by its Chief Secretary to Government, Public (Special A) Department), Chennai and another]. Even in the said decision, this Court has taken a view that when an officer is exercising quasi-judicial function and if the department is not satisfied about the valuation, nothing prevented the department from filing an appeal and in the absence of any motive or bad intention, no charge could be framed against the petitioner therein. The said judgment also, in my considered view, squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment 2012 (5) Scale 734 [The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha] has taken a view that issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice itself will not give raise to any cause of action, which requires to be challenged in a Court of law. The said decision may not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since I have already expressed that the charge against the petitioner is liable to be quashed for the reasons set out above. 18. Considering the totality of the circumstances referred above, I am of the considered view that the charge sheet made against the petitioner dated 20.10.2010 and 21.01.2010, which has been served on the petitioner on 27.01.2010, just five days prior to his retirement, are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The order of suspension followed by charge memo, also is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. The writ petitions stand thus allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the entire terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the terminal benefits are not settled within the said period, the amount payable shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when it has become due till it is paid to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.