1968 (12) TMI 104 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner.
3. Compliance with the Notaries Rules, 1956 and the Stamp Act, 1899.
4. Procedural fairness and principles of natural justice.
5. Allegations of mala fides by the State Government.
6. Implications of the cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of practice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned order issued by the State Government under Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952, arguing that the order was based on charges that did not amount to professional misconduct. The court found that the charges framed did not explicitly allege professional misconduct, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend against such an allegation. Consequently, the court concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained.

2. Allegations of Professional Misconduct:
The Competent Authority framed three charges against the petitioner: failure to make entries in his register, failure to affix notarial stamps, and failure to affix adhesive stamps. The court noted that none of these charges explicitly constituted professional misconduct. The court emphasized that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend against an allegation of professional misconduct, as the charges did not indicate such an accusation. The court referenced the special appeal decision reported in AIR 1967 All 173, which highlighted the need for explicit allegations of professional misconduct.

3. Compliance with the Notaries Rules, 1956 and the Stamp Act, 1899:
The court examined the charges in light of the Notaries Rules and the Stamp Act. It was found that the petitioner's failure to affix adhesive stamps was not his duty, as per the Competent Authority's own discussion. Regarding the notarial stamps, the court held that the petitioner's endorsement on affidavits constituted a notarial act requiring a notarial stamp under Article 42 of the Stamp Act. However, the charge of not making entries in the notarial register was found to be erroneous, as Rule 11(2) did not apply to affidavits, and the Competent Authority incorrectly relied on Rule 11(9).

4. Procedural Fairness and Principles of Natural Justice:
The court highlighted that the petitioner was not informed that the enquiry was to determine professional misconduct, thus denying him the opportunity to defend himself adequately. The court stated that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not apprised of the nature of the allegations against him. The court emphasized that the charges should have explicitly mentioned professional misconduct to provide the petitioner a fair chance to defend himself.

5. Allegations of Mala Fides by the State Government:
The petitioner alleged mala fides on the part of the State Government, arguing that the delay in issuing the certificate after the special appeal judgment indicated bad faith. The court found no evidence to support the claim of mala fides, noting that the delay could be attributed to procedural requirements and did not necessarily indicate deliberate intent to harm the petitioner.

6. Implications of the Cancellation of the Petitioner's Certificate of Practice:
The petitioner argued that the cancellation of his certificate without specifying a period amounted to perpetual debarment. The court clarified that cancellation of the certificate did not imply perpetual debarment. The petitioner could apply for a new certificate if the State Government deemed him fit to practice as a Notary in the future. The court thus rejected the contention that the cancellation amounted to perpetual debarment.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order (Annexure 9) and awarding costs to the petitioner. The court clarified that the State Government could proceed against the petitioner according to law if it chose to do so. The judgment emphasized the need for explicit charges and adherence to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings against professionals.