Mandatory nature of Rule 13, Notaries Rules: Non-compliance with prescribed complaint form and procedure vitiates removal proceedings.

The appellant, a practicing Advocate and Notary for 71 years, challenged her removal from the Register of Notaries by the State Government vide order dated 05.09.2024.

The removal was based on a complaint dated 04.08.2022 by Respondent No. 3, alleging that the appellant fraudulently notarized a land-related consent letter in favor of Respondent No. 4.

An inquiry was conducted by the District and Sessions Judge, Kanker, resulting in an opinion that the appellant was negligent.

The appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 5468 of 2024, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 10.07.2025, holding that due process was followed.

The appellant preferred this Writ Appeal, contending that the initial complaint 1) was not in the mandatory Form XIII and 2) failed to list evidence as required by the Notaries Rules, 1956.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956.

Whether the findings of professional misconduct were sustainable when the sole attesting witness was not examined and the Inquiry Officer’s findings were inconclusive.

The court primarily applied Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952, which empowers the government to remove a notary for professional misconduct.

It strictly interpreted Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, which mandates that an inquiry must be initiated either *suo motu* or via a complaint in "Form XIII" and must contain specific oral or documentary evidence.

The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 13(3), which dictates that the government "shall return" any complaint not in the proper form.

The Division Bench observed that the proceedings were triggered by a private complaint that failed to meet the statutory requirements of Form XIII and Rule 13(2)(b).

Since Rule 13(3) uses the word "shall," the State was legally obligated to return the defective complaint rather than proceed with an inquiry.

The court rejected the State's argument that the inquiry could be treated as *suo motu*, noting the record clearly showed the action was based solely on the defective complaint.

Furthermore, the court found the inquiry substantively flawed because the Inquiry Officer admitted it could not be proven that the complainant was absent during notarization, yet recommended removal.

The failure to examine the sole attesting witness constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court held that procedural safeguards in Rule 13 are conditions precedent to jurisdiction.

The matter was remanded to the State Government to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly adhering to the mandatory procedures and providing a reasoned order after a fair hearing.