Collection and deposit of prescribed stamp duty cannot constitute illegal gratification or misconduct.

The petitioner, a retired Village Accountant, was assigned additional charge of Konthikal Nagarala Saja in 1999.

A landholder sought mutation of agricultural land in his own name and in the names of his two sons.

The petitioner collected Rs.750—Rs.250 for each share—towards stamp duty/mutation-related charges and issued a challan/receipt.

The Lokayukta Police treated the demand as illegal gratification, registered a case under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and prosecuted the petitioner; he was acquitted by the Sessions Court on 21 July 2004.

A departmental enquiry was also initiated.

An earlier dismissal order was set aside by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which directed that a fresh enquiry be conducted.

After the fresh enquiry, the Government accepted the Lokayukta’s recommendation and, by order dated 22 January 2015, permanently withheld 50% of the petitioner’s pension.

The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s challenge on 21 April 2021, leading to the present writ petition.

Whether the petitioner’s collection of Rs.750 from the complainant constituted lawful recovery of stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp (Second Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Government Circular dated 12 May 1999, rather than illegal gratification.

Whether the departmental finding of misconduct and the Government’s order permanently withholding 50% of the petitioner’s pension were legally sustainable in the circumstances.

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the Government’s pensionary penalty.

The Court applied the Karnataka Stamp (Second Amendment) Act, 1999, particularly the provision prescribing stamp duty of Rs.250 for each share in a partition of agricultural land.

It also relied on the Government Circular dated 12 May 1999, which directed revenue officials to verify payment of the prescribed stamp duty, recover the amount if unpaid, issue a receipt, and deposit the collection with the Government; the circular specifically illustrated recovery of Rs.750 where agricultural land was divided into three shares.

The governing principle applied was that recovery and deposit of a statutorily prescribed fee, supported by official records and a receipt, cannot be characterised as illegal gratification or misconduct absent proof of a corrupt demand or misuse of official position.

Although the petitioner relied on Gyanchand Chattar v. Union of India and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, the judgment’s operative reasoning was principally based on the statutory provision, the Government Circular, and the documentary record.

The Court found that the complainant sought mutation in favour of himself and his two sons, thereby creating three shares.

The applicable statutory provision and the Government Circular prescribed stamp duty of Rs.250 per share, making the total amount payable Rs.750.

The official register and Appendix-1 recorded the collection as “stamp duty 250 × 3 = 750,” and the amount was supported by a challan/receipt and deposited into the Government Treasury.

These documents corroborated the petitioner’s explanation and negated the allegation that the amount was a bribe.

Since the collection was authorised by law and effected in accordance with the Government’s own instructions, the Court held that it could not be treated as illegal gratification or departmental misconduct.

The Tribunal therefore failed to properly appreciate the statutory and documentary material, rendering its order arbitrary and erroneous.

It held that the Rs.750 collected was lawful stamp duty and not illegal gratification, and that the petitioner’s conduct did not constitute misconduct.

The writ petition was allowed; the Tribunal’s order dated 21 April 2021 was set aside, the Government order dated 22 January 2015 permanently withholding 50% of the petitioner’s pension was quashed, and Application No.645/2016 before the Tribunal was allowed.

The respondents were directed to release the petitioner’s entire pension in accordance with law.