Natural justice in notarial discipline: adverse action fails when the real misconduct basis is not clearly put to the notary.

The article discusses a notarial disciplinary action in which the Court found that cancellation could not stand because the notice and charges did not clearly disclose that the enquiry concerned professional misconduct rendering the Notary unfit to practise, thereby denying a fair opportunity to meet the real case. It also notes that the finding on absence of notarial stamp was treated as sustainable because the post-oath endorsement formed part of notarial duties, while the register-entry finding failed because it was recorded on a basis not matched to the charge. The Court further treated cancellation without a fixed period as not amounting to perpetual debarment, since fresh consideration could still be possible under law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the impugned cancellation of the notarial certificate could be sustained when the petitioner had not been expressly apprised that the enquiry concerned professional misconduct rendering him unfit to practise as a Notary; (ii) whether the findings regarding absence of notarial stamp and failure to make register entries were legally sustainable; and (iii) whether cancellation of the certificate without fixing a period amounted to perpetual debarment.

Issue (i): whether the impugned cancellation of the notarial certificate could be sustained when the petitioner had not been expressly apprised that the enquiry concerned professional misconduct rendering him unfit to practise as a Notary.

Analysis: The notice and the charges framed under the Notaries Rules did not disclose that the petitioner was being proceeded against on the footing that the proved allegations would amount to professional misconduct of such gravity as to render him unfit to practise. The enquiry therefore proceeded on a basis not conveyed to the petitioner, depriving him of a fair opportunity to meet the real case against him. The defect went to the root of the matter and offended the requirements of fair hearing and natural justice.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on this ground and the impugned order could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the findings regarding absence of notarial stamp and failure to make register entries were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The endorsement made by a Notary after administering oath to an affidavit was held to be part of the execution of notarial duties and therefore capable of attracting the notarial stamp requirement. As to the register charge, the finding recorded by the Competent Authority did not conform to the actual charge and was based on a different rule from the one invoked in the charge; the alleged omission to enter affidavits in the register was not established in the manner required by the charge itself.

Conclusion: The objection to the stamp-endorsing finding failed, but the register-entry finding was unsustainable as recorded.

Issue (iii): whether cancellation of the certificate without fixing a period amounted to perpetual debarment from practising as a Notary.

Analysis: Removal of the name from the register was treated as carrying with it cancellation of the certificate, but not as an irrevocable bar for all time. A fresh certificate could still be considered if the Government later found the person fit to practise.

Conclusion: The impugned action did not amount, by itself, to perpetual debarment.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the impugned notification was quashed, while leaving it open to the Government to proceed in accordance with law if so advised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the real basis of a statutory disqualification is not clearly put to the person proceeded against, and the charge framed does not fairly disclose the legal foundation of the proposed adverse action, the resulting order is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

---