Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the second respondent dated 28.08.2009. By the impugned order, the second respondent District Registrar informed the petitioner that his Document Writer's Licence was temporarily cancelled. The reason for suspension was that the Nagapattinam Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Officers conducted a surprise check and sent a report to the Sub-Registrar,Nagore on 25.08.2009. Since the petitioner was acting contrary to the Document Writer's Licence his suspension was made by the authorities.
3. In this context, it is also pointed out that an FIR has been registered with the Nagapattinam Police Station on 25.08.2009. In the FIR, it was stated that the petitioner who was a Document Writer was present in the Sub-Registrar's Office with three original cash receipts issued in the name of various other persons and Rs.1160/- was checked and interrogated. Since he was in possession of original cash receipts issued in the name of various applicants along with the cash, it was a clear violation of document writer's licence. On being interrogated by the police, it was informed that it was a routine practice to collect such document and he was also having still more original registered documents, Encumbrance Original Certificates at his office. He also used to collect amounts from various applicants at his office for registering the documents. It was also stated that a sum of Rs.1,04,980/- was found kept in 24 small bundles in his office which was situated opposite to the register office. In addition to this, 30 Encumbrance Original Certificates, 55 Original Cash receipts issued by the Sub Registrar, Nagore, 53 original registered documents, 8 original marriage certificates of various other persons in his office. The petitioner was also arrayed as an accused in the corruption case. It is under these circumstances, the report was sent, which resulted in the suspension of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of temporary suspension of his licence. The ground raised by the petitioner was cancellation of the licence is contrary to the Rules. The registration of an FIR cannot be a ground to cancel his licence. It is the first respondent who was the authority, who granted licence. Therefore,the second respondent is not competent to order cancellation of his licence. This Court is unable to agree with the submission made by the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in A.Singaravel v. The District Registrar reported in AIR 2005 Madras 429. In that case, it was held that the District Registrar under Rule 16(1) of the Document Writers Licence Rules is empowered to suspend the licence of a document writer not exceeding a month at a time and that suspension has to be made only for a misconduct and unsatisfactory work.
6. It is unthinkable that the petitioner's conduct is in anyway satisfactory or that the petitioner never committed any misconduct. On the contrary the report of the Vigilance Police clearly shows that the petitioner had contravened the licence conditions. Secondly, the suspension has been made by the second respondent, who is the competent authority. Therefore, it is not as if the suspension was without jurisdiction. The term 'at a time' found under Rule 16(1) only means that it is a temporary suspension and it can be resorted by the District Registrar. A similar term found in a Special by-laws applicable to a Co-operative Society came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in The Secretary, Palani Co-operative Society, Palani and another vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras reported in AIR 1975 Madras 241 and it was interpreted that the said clause did not denote a suspension as a punishment but a temporary suspension pending an enquiry. The emphasis was laid on the term "at a time" found in the byelaw to interpret the clause. Such an interpretation was made by this Court in respect of the Document Writer's Licence Rules vide its decision in K.Arunachalam Pillai and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in 2002(1) CTC 151.
7. Under these circumstances, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner in filing an appeal under Rule 17 of the Rules to the Appellate Authority.
svki To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai -28.
2.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Nagapattinam.
3.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and anticorruption, Nagapattinam