M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----In this case, the appellant an ex-- Patwari, is aggrieved by the order of Collector (Assistant Commissioner), Narowal, dated 10-3-1979, and the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dated 27-6-1979, removing him from service.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant during the period 30-4-1975 to 31-4-1975 remained posted in Circle Dhamthal, Tehsil Narowal, as Patwari. It is alleged that he on 13-4-1975 on application No. 37444 presented by one Boota son of Feroze Din son of Labhoo, a refugee from Jammu & Kashmir State, reported that the land bearing Khasra No. 1916, 1917, 1925, to 1929, was available for allotment and he recommended that the same may be allotted to him. The land in question was accordingly allotted to the aforesaid Muhammad Boota, vide Khata No. 35, who after depositing the requisite amount was granted the proprietary rights of the same. However, the same land stood already allotted in favour of Feroze son of Mithu against application No. 27626 on the basis of the report dated 3-2-1975 of his predecessor Sain Ahmad Patwari, Feroze son of Mithu had also likewise deposited the Government dues and had become the owner of the same. The appellant was charged for negligence and gross misconduct for making a false report in favour of Muhammad Boota aforesaid.
3. The matter was noticed during a probe held by Lal Din Rafiq, Tehsildar, Narowal, who reported the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal on 27-12-1978. On 1-1-1979, the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal, directed that action be taken against the appellant and Khairat Hussain, Patwari, the successor of appellant. The appellant was accordingly charge--sheeted on 3-1-1979 and Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Resident Magistrate, Narowal, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who on 8-2- 1979, reported that the appellant was guilty of negligence and gross misconduct. However, he exonerated Khairat Hussain, Patwari, who according to report, had merely attested the signatures of the appellant. In pursuance to the Inquiry Report, the Inquiry Officer, recommended the appellant for a major penalty and on 10-3-1979, the Collector, Narowal, directed the removal of the appellant from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commis--sioner, Lahore Division, was rejected on 27-6- 1979. Eventually the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 18-7-1979.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the depart--mental authorities have ignored the fact that Feroze Din son of Labhoo was, in fact, the temporary allottee of this land vide Permit No. 21392, dated 3-7-1959 in the capacity of a refugee from the Jammu and Kashmir State.
But after his death, his son Muhammad Boota son of Feroze and his mother approached him for the allotment of land on permanent basis. The appellant submitted that he being new to the Circle, could not personally identify Muhammad Boota and he in good faith relying upon the Fard Taqseem produced by Muhammad Boota which appeared to be genuine made the report in question. Moreover, the Register Haqdaran for the year 1969-1970, also showed Feroze Din son of Labhoo as the allottee of the land. Thus there was no mala fide on his part and he acted in a bona fide manner. He also placed strong reliance on the report of Tehsildar, Narowal, according to which Khairat Hussain, was the real culprit and not the appellant. The appellant next contended that the Commissioner had clearly erred in holding that the appellant splashed water on the existing entries or had interpolated with the same inasmuch as there was no such charge nor there was any evidence on the record to that effect. Thus the finding given by the Commissioner is based on conjectures and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellant was never provided with any opportunity to rebut the same. He also submitted that the mutation in respect of inheritance of late Feroze son of Labhoo had since been sanctioned on 3-9-1978, in favour of Muhammad Boota son of Feroze Din, as per copies at Annexures `B' and `C' placed on the record.
Thus on 13-6-1975, the absence of mutation of inheritance in favour of Muhammad Boota son of Feroze, was a mere technicality and it was riot sufficient to establish the plea of mala fide on the part of appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in any case the case did not call for extreme punishment.
5. The Department, on the other hand, argued that the land was still with the heirs of Labhoo son of Mithu and the matter was sub judice before the Civil Court. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Feroze Din son of Labhoo was, in fact, a person who never appeared at the scene- nor he ever contacted any of the official concerned. Thus there was little justification for the appellant to entertain the claim of Muhammad Boota much less to recommend the allotment in his favour especially when the land stood already allotted in favour of Feroze Din son of Mithu in the relevant records. The learned Government Pleader also supported the findings of the Commissioner on the premises contained in his order of the Commissioner.
6. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the conduct of the appellant was clearly questionable on the ground of irregularity. He did not contest the same either before the Departmental Authorities or before us. However, we do not find adequate justification on the record to support the departmental finding that the appellant was guilty of mala fide or of misconduct.
We find considerable force in the objection of the appellant that the Commissioner was not justified to raise the inference of mala fide against the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of splashing water on the existing entries or that the mutation in favour of Muhammad Boota was yet to be sanctioned. With regard to the mutation, we find that though the finding of the Commissioner was correct, but the default was purely technical. In fact, the position remained uncontested that the mutation had since been sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Boota son of Feroze Din on 3-9-1978 and it was not disputed by the Department.
7. As regards the interpolation of the existing entries regarding the allotment of land in favour of Feroze Din son of Mithu, we find that it was nowhere the charge nor the appellant was allowed any opportunity to meet the same. We, therefore, cannot uphold the findings in this behalf.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant was guilty of mere irregularity. Since the appellant has been penalised for acting mala fide, we feel that the punishment awarded to the appellant is excessive. We accordingly modify the punishment and direct that the pa, of the appellant be reduced by four stages.
9. Consequently, the appeal is accepted in the manner and extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.