M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this case the appellant an ex-Patwari, Halqa Mosiari, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi (from 20th October, 1970 to 25th December, 1971) was charge-sheeted on 20th September, 1974 for preparing false Tatimmas of Khasra No. 327 (Khewat No. 197)-Khasra Nos. 565/327, 566/327 and 567/327, in favour of Gal Andaz for 30 kanals, Qaim Khan for 20 kanals and Muzaffar Khan for 43 kanals and 6 marlas included in Shamlat Deh of village Gora as per entries contained in Register Haqdaran for the year 1966-67 and kasra girdawari for the year 1971-
72. This was clearly in contra--vention of the provisions contained in para. 24.4 of the Land Revenue Manual. The appellant, however, denied the charge and stated that he had been on leave during the period 6th November, 1971 to 7th December, 1971 and Muhammad Firdous was holding the charge of the post for that period, therefore, it could not be ruled out that he had done the same.
2. The explanation of the appellant failed to find favour with the Competent Authority, and appointed Tehsildar, Murree as Inquiry Officer, who vide enquiry report dated 11th January, 1975 found the appellant guilty. In reply to show-cause notice dated 14th January, 1975, the appellant again pleaded his innocence but the Assistant Commissioner, Murree on 26th February, 1975 dismissed him from service. An appeal preferred on 13th March, 1975 before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi was rejected on 1st July, 1975. A further Revision Petition to the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 30th September, 1975 was also rejected on 30th January, 1976 as incompetent and also on the ground that there was no irregularity or illegality with the orders appealed against. Ultimately the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 3rd February, 1976.
3. The department has contested this appeal initially on the ground that it is barred by time. It is submitted that in this case the proceed--ings against the appellant were initiated under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 which did not make any provision for any revision petition. Thus no revision petition was competent. We do not agree with this contention of the Department. We find that vide rule 19 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, as enforced on 2nd March, 1975, the provisions contained in Chapter IV which provided for appeal or revi--sion, were made applicable even to the pending proceedings. Since in this case the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, passed the final order on 1st July, 1975, i.e., after coming into operation of 1975 Efficiency and Discipline Rules, therefore, the revision petition to the Government 't was competent. In this case the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, also happened to be the Secretary to the Punjab Government, therefore, the petition could be entertained as revision petition. However, we are satisfied that the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, has rejected the appeal not merely as incompetent but also on merits.
4. On merits the appellant contended that he was not at fault and in fact the discrepancy alleged against him as contained in part Sarkar of Tatimmas-Khasra Nos. 565/327, 566/327 and 567/327 in favour of Gul Andaz, Qaim Khan and Muzaffar Khan, respectively was the result of the interpolation in the Tehsil Office. Since Gul Andaz was a peon in the Tehsil Office, therefore, he was responsible for the interpolation and the appellant had prepared the Tatimmas correctly. We are afraid that the above contention would not be availed of by the appellant. In the first instance, the appellant has failed to show to us that there was any authority for preparing Tatimmas by him. The appellant has not asserted that the signatures contained on part Sarkar of the Tatimmas in question were forged or that it did not contain his signatures. Thus in our view the findings of the departmental authorities that the part Sarkar of Tatimmas Nos. 565/327 and 566/327 bear the signatures of the appellant was unexceptional. As regards the plea of the appellant that the interpolation might have been done at the instance of Gul Andaz, we do not find that the appellant had raised any such plea before the Departmental Authorities at any stage. Even in the grounds of appeal preferred before us the plea is conspicuous by its absence. We cannot therefore, allow the appellant to raise this plea for the first time which he never raised before the Departmental Authorities at any stage or in the grounds of appeal before us. The plea of appellant that he prepared the Tatimmas correctly is equally of no avail to him as the appellant had no authority to prepare the Tatimmas in question. The very preparation of Tatimmas without the sanction of Collector is in violation of para. 24.4, of the Land Revenue Manual and makes the appellant liable and renders his conduct questionable. We, therefore, find little force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.