M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this case the appellant an ex-Patwari is aggrieved by the order of Collector (Assistant Commissioner Pasrur, District Sialkot, dated 17-7-1978, and the order of Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, dated 26-8-1978, directing his compulsory retirement from service, under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975.
2. At the time of Open Katchery by the Collector, Distt. Sialkot, Messrs Muhammad Hussain, and Khushi Muhammad Chowkidar, leveled various charges against the appellant. He was accordingly suspended from service in 1975. An enquiry was ordered into the conduct of the appellant. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the order of Settlement Officer, Sialkot, on six charges involving corruption, embezzlement and misconduct etc, The enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tehsildar, Pasrur, who after examining the seven witnesses produced by the appellant in his defence on 17-7-1975, reported that the charges Nos. 3, 4 and 6 stood proved against the appellant which were as follows: ----- "(3) that the land belonging to the wife of Muhammad Shafi resident of Qazi Paharang, Tehsil Pasrur and other relatives was under mortgage with Muhammad Azam etc. Of village Talwandi Inayat Khan for the last about 25 years. To file a suit for the redemption of the said land Muhammad Shafi demanded a copy of the Register of Haqdaran Zamin and paid Rs. 100 to the Patwari Muhammad Tufail but even after the lapse of a period of two months he did not give the copy nor did he refund the amount.
(4) that Muhammad Qasim son of Bahawal Bakhsh of village Qazi Paharang, Tehsil Pasrur, demanded a copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the land owned by him but he (respondent) told him that he should get the required copy from his servant, Abdul Razzaq of village Daulatpur.
Accordingly Muhammad Qasim went to his servant who received Rs. 10 and delivered the copy but when this copy was shown to the respondent he replied that it was an incorrect copy and that he would give a correct copy after its preparation but he demanded Rs. 100 for the same. Muhammad Qasim tried his level best saying that he was a poor man but the respondent received Rs. 100 from him as illegal gratification. Before that the respondent had received a sum of Rs. 360 as illegal gratification from the said Muhammad Qasim for entering a mutation; and
(6) that lambardar of village Kodi Khawaja, Tehsil Pasrur, absented and under the direction of Tehsildar the respondent collected land revenue but did not pay the salary of Chowkidar. Naib- Tehsildar also advised him to make payment of the pay of the Chowkidar but he did not care and embezzled the amount."
3. He was accordingly served with a show-cause notice by the Settlement Officer, Sialkot, and after hearing him directed the retirement of the appellant on 13-10-1975. The appellant challenged the order in question before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, in Appeal No. 41 dated 2-6-1977, which was allowed on the ground that the show-cause notice was defective inasmuch as it failed to specify the exact penalty to be imposed upon the appellant. The case was remanded by him on 6- 5-1978. In pursuance to the remanded order, the case was again considered by the Collector (Assistant Commissioner), Pasrur, who after issuing a fresh show-cause notice on 29-6-1978 to the appellant vide his order dated 17-8-1978, directed the compulsory retirement of the appellant. The appellant again approached the Commissioner, Lahore Division, in appeal who rejected the same holding that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 1-10-1978.
4. The appellant submitted that charge No. 3 was not established against him inasmuch as Mr. Muhammad Shafi, the complainant had accepted in the cross-examination that Rs. 100 were given by him to the appellant in lieu of rent which he received back subsequently. According to the appellant, in view of the admission above, it was not possible to hold that the charge against him had been proved. Moreover, he pointed out that the aforesaid Muhammad Shafi had accepted, before the Inquiry Officer, the suggestion. From the appellant that he did approach the appellant to seek change in the relevant Revenue records in his favour. Since the appellant refused to show favour, therefore, he had falsely implicated the appellant in the charge. He also alleged that the complaint being annonymous did not merit any serious consideration.
5. With regard to charge No. 4, he submitted that the same was false inasmuch as no evidence was produced to substantiate the charge against him. He also submitted that the alleged payment of Rs. 360 for the sanction of the mutation was also incorrect inasmuch as there was no mutation in the name of the complainant ever entered by the appellant.
6. As regards Muhammad Qasim, he submitted that the mutation, in fact, pertained to one Muhammad Sadiq and it was very unlikely that Muhammad Qasim, complainant should have paid the amount in question.
7. With regard to the last charge, he submitted that Khushi Muhammad, Chowkidar, had stated nothing against him and in fact it was evident even from the report of the Inquiry Officer that Khushi Muhammad had not made any statement to support the allegation. With these submissions, the appellant pressed for the acceptance of this appeal.
8. The Government Pleader in rebuttal submitted that with regard to charge No. 3, it is admitted that the appellant did receive Rs.
100. The suggestion with regard to the purpose of the payment was too vague to raise any inference of bona fide in favour of the appellant. He submitted that the fact that the appellant charged Rs. 100 from Muhammad Shafi, established the misconduct on the part of the appellant and even subsequent refund of the same did not purge his fault. He submitted that the appellant did not make any suggestion to Muhammad Qasim son of Bahawal Bakhsh, witness in the cross-examination against the payment of Rs. 360 for sanctioning mutation.
According to the Government Pleader, the plea now raised is an afterthought. Similarly, with regard to charge No. 6, he submitted that the same was established against the appellant. He went on to contend that the appellant being Patwari exercised undue influence on the witnesses and was able to illicitly get favourable statements from him.
9. After careful consideration of the respective contentions raised before us and the perusal of the records, we are firmly of the view that this appeal merits to be dismissed. In the first instance, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader which is fully borne out from the facts on the record that the appellant did not suggest any enmity to Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Qasim, complainants who supported the charges Nos. 3 and 4 against him. We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the very fart of the receipt of Rs. 100 by the appellant from Muhammad Shafi was objectionable. Even in the cross- examination, he failed to get the nature of the transaction cleared. The Patwari by the Rules of Conduct,I.9 are prohibited to have any commercial transaction within their circle of" employment.
In the absence of any clear explanation obtained by the appellant from the witnesses, it is not possible to hold that what was the purpose of the amount in question which was alleged to have been taken by him as a bribe. We, therefore, find no good reason to interfere with the findings of the department in this regard.
10. With regard to charge No. 4, we find that the appellant did not question the witness with regard to the receipt of Rs. 360. Thus the same, in any case, is clearly established against him. Even with regard to the payment of Rs. 100 demanded for supplying an accurate copy of Fard he did not put any question to Muhammad Qasim in the cross-examination. Thus it is difficult for us to interfere with the departmental finding in this behalf.
11. However, with regard to charge No. 6, we do not agree with the departmental findings. In fact, we find from the record that even the Inquiry Officer had observed that Khushi Muhammad, Chowkidar had avoided to make any statement before him against the appellant. We accord--ingly acquit the appellant on that charge.
12. Since the two charges involving corruption stand proved against the appellant, we find no good ground for interference in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.