1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------In this case the appellant an ex-Patwari is aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer/Collector, Sialkot, dated 25-5-1971, dismissing him from service and the order of the Com--missioner, Lahore Division, dated 3-8-1971, rejecting his appeal and also by the order of Member, Board of Revenue, dated 23-2-1972 rejecting his Revision Petition.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Patwari in the year 1952 in District Sialkot. He was confirmed in the same capacity in the year 1958-59. In the year 1962, one Ashiq Hussain was proposed to be allotted on 11-6-1902, 208 kanals and 15 marlas agricultural land under M. L. R. 9 (Border Area Allotment Committee) vide Khata No. 40 in village Dudeh, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot. However, it appears that the land so allotted to Muhammad Nawaz was proposed to be cancelled on 18-2-1964 and, in fact, as proposal to that effect was sent to the General Headquarters, Rawalpindi, on 25-12-1964. In the meantime one Muhammad Nawaz produced a Robkar dated 17-11-1966 showing the allotment of 200 kanals 6 marlas agricultural land out of the above land against which he was shown to have deposited a sum of Rs. 594. On the production of this Robkar the appellant who was at the relevant time posted in village Dudeh on 14- 1-1967 made Entry No. 168 in the daily roznameha for the year 1966-67 and on 5-2-1967 also entered the Mutation No. 1902 by making the corresponding entry No. 283 in the Daily roznameha, in favour of Muhammad Nawaz. The Mutation No. 1902 was, in fact, got sanctioned on 10-4-1967 in favour of Muhammad Nawaz on the assump--tion that the land in question had been cancelled from the name of Ashiq Hussain the previous allottee and the possession in the Revenue Records was. However, earlier the Halqa Girdawar on 25-2-1967 did point out that the allotment was still subsisting in the name of the previous allottee Ashiq Hussain and without canceling the same, the fresh allotment was not valid.
3. In the circumstances, the appellant was charges-sheeted on 6-12-1968, by the order of the Settlement Officer/Collector, Sialkot, on the charges that the Mutation No. 1902 in favour of Muhammad Nawaz was entered on 5-2-1967 and got sanctioned on 10-4-1967 without verification by Girdawar and without the cancellation of the landlord from the name of Ashiq Hussain and also by concealing the entries of Khasra Girdawari for Rabi and Kharif 1967 which constituted corrupt and dishonest conduct on the part of the appellant. The above allegations of misconduct against the appellant were investigated and the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 10-8-1970, reported that the appellant, in the first instance should have got the allotment from the name of Ashiq Hussain cancelled by entering a mutation to that effect which was a technical mistake. Since no one had suffered any loss and the approval for the cancellation of the land from the name of Ashiq Hussain was ultimately granted by G. H. Q. On 26-11-1967 and he has allotted alternate land, therefore, the appellant may be administered a warning. But the Settlement Officer did not accept the above recommendations of the inquiry Officer. He accordingly served the appellant with a show-cause notice for dismissal from service. After the receipt of the reply and hearing him personally, on 25-5-1971, dismissed the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal in which the Commissioner, Lahore Division, took the view that the appellant had got the Mutation No. 1902 sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Nawaz by representing that the possession was as in the year 1964-65 which, in fact was not correct. Thus the appellant was guilty of concealing the fact and he even avoided to get the checking of the mutation entries by the Halqa Girdawar as required under the rules, therefore, he was guilty. He accordingly rejected the appeal. Similarly, the Revision petition before the Board of Revenue was rejected on 23-2-1972. The appellant in support of this appeal submitted that according to Annexure `A', which was signed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), who was the competent Authority to allot the land in question, he was justified to assume that the land, in fact, had been allotted to Muhammad Nawaz. He also referred to Annexure `B' in which the Border Area Allotment Committee, on 18-2-1964, had directed the cancellation of the allotment and communicated that the matter had been sent to the G. H. Q., Rawalpindi on 25-12-1964, for approval. He submitted that under M. L. R. 9, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) had full powers to cancel and direct the allotment of the land in favour of the Army Personnels. Thus the order was valid. He further submitted that, in fact, no wrong has been done to anybody and the land, in fact, had been subsequently cancelled with the approval of G. H.
4. Q., Rawalpindi and even the allotment in question in favour of Muhammad Nawaz still stands. Thus the lapse, if any, was procedural and technical. In the circumstances, the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer for lesser penalty were abundantly justified and there was little justification for the action taken by the higher authorities. He vehemently argued and pressed his plea of bona fide.
5. However, it was conceded before us that a formal mutation could have been entered for the cancellation of the allotment of land in the name of Ashiq Hussain before sanctioning the mutation of allotment in favour of Muhammad Nawaz. The learned Government Pleader supported the orders of the departmental authorities for the reasons contained in the impugned orders.
6. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, we are of the view that the appellant has been guilty of a mere irregularity. He was required to examine the records carefully and also to enter can--cellation of mutation in the name of Ashiq Hussain before proposing the sanction of mutation in favour of Muhammad Nawaz. He appears to have acted irregularly as there is no evidence to show that he acted dis--honestly with a corrupt motive. We, therefore, find the appellant guilty of inefficiency only. Since no loss has been caused to any party, we do not consider that the case called for maximum penalty. We accordingly modify, the punishment and reduce the same to reduction in the pay of the appellant by three stages. As the appellant has not been acquitted, we, further Erect that the appellant will get one half of the salary for the period he remained out of service. Consequently the appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above.
7. However, there will be no order as to costs.