1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY CHAIRMAN).-In this appeal the appellant is an ex-Patwari. He is aggrieved by the order of Collector, Muaffargarh, dated 21st September, 1973, dismissing him from service and the order of Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 6th May, 1974 maintaining the order of his dismissal. The present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal on 6th May, 1975 with the following backgrounds-
(1) That the appellant was charge-sheeted for receiving a sure of Rs. 75 as bribe and 3-- seers Ghee as illegal gratification and a further sum of Rs. 100 for issuing a Parcha Malqiat, as he had failed to enter mutation of inheritance of Mst. Alam Khatoon mother of Abdur Rehman who died on 8th June 1971 ; and
(2) that he failed to enter 'the mutation of inheritance of Mst. Alam Khatoon within the prescribed limit of three months but entered Mutation No. 149 on 14th July, 1972 after a delay of about one year."
2. The above charge-sheet was preceded by a preliminary enquiry con--ducted by Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad Sahi, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Muzaffargarh, who held the appellant guilty vide his report slated 25th January, 1973, and recommended immediate suspension of the appellant. The appellant was accordingly suspended on 26th January, 1973.
3. After the receipt of his reply, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Muzaffargarh, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who held after examining Abdur Rehman, P. W. 1, complainant Allah Ditta, Chowkidar, P.W.
2. Karim Bux P.W. 3 and Wahid Bux P.W. 4, that charge No. 2 was proved.
4. Amanullah Khan, POS, who conducted the preliminary enquiry against the appellant had also, after examining Jan Muhammad, Reader, Muhammad Rafiq, P.W. 2, Ghulam Sarwar, P.W. 3, held that the appellant failed to enter mutation of inheritance of Mst. Alam Khatoon, daughter of Qaim Din, who died on 8th June, 1974, within three months as laid down in the Land Revenue Manual, Part III.
5. Accordingly it was or-ld that charge No. 2 was proved against the appellant. However, charge No. I was not proved. The appellant was served with a show--cause notice for a major penalty. After receipt of his reply and granting him personal hearing, the Collector, Muzaffargarh, vide his impugned order dated 29th September 1973, dismissed him from service, holding that both the charges against the appellant were proved. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan division, Multan, which was rejected on 6th May, 1974. Hence the present appeal before us. The learned Government Pleader has raised a preliminary objection that final order against the appellant was passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, on 6th May, 1974 and the appel--lant having obtained a copy of the order on 3rd June, 1974, he filed the present appeal on 6th May, 1975 which is clearly barred by time. The appellant, however, submitted that he had filed his appeal to this Tribunal on 28th June, 1974 after which he did not hear anything from this Tribunal. It was only on 8th April, 1975 that on his personal enquiry it transpired that the appeal had been returned to him on 2nd July, 1974 treating the same as incomplete. He had then checked our record. The assertion of the appellant appears to be correct. The appeal was returned to the appellant on 11th July, 1974, but the same was received back by this Tribunal with the postal following remarks dated 15th July, 1974. `Not known returned to sender'.
6. The explanation of the appellant appears to be reasonable and there appears to be no deliberate delay on his part. We accordingly condone the delay.
7. On merits, the appellant reiterated his contention that he had riot been informed either by the heirs of the deceased or anybody else and for that reason his failure to enter the mutation after the death of Mst. Alam Khatoon, till 14th July, 1972, was not actionable. As soon as the information came to his notice, he made an entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati, accordingly. He further submitted that under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, it is obligatory for the legal heirs of the deceased to report the fact of the death to the appellant, and as such he was not at fault. It was also submitted that the Collector was not justified to hold the charge with regard to the receipt of illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 75 and 32 seers of Ghee from Abdur Rehman son of Mst. Alam Khatoon, deceased. He further submitted before us that Abdur Rehman, who appeared as P.W. 1 before the Inquiry Officer, claimed that he had himself made the payment, whereas P.W. 3 Karim Bakhsh stated that Dilawar Bakhsh P.W. 2 gave the money. P.Ws. 3 and 4 were they tenants of P.W. 2, For the discrepancy above and the fact that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were tenants of P.W. 2, the Inquiry Officer has rightly held that the case was not proved. According to the appellant the learned Collector without giving any reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and also without giving any fresh show-cause notice on the appellant acted illegally in holding that the charge No. 2 was also proved. It was next submitted by the appellant that the show-cause notice merely suggested the penalty of "Bartarfi" which was equivalent to removal from service whereas he was dismissed from service. The appellant also submitted that in any case it was a case of mere negligence and the punishment of dismissal was highly disproportionate to the fault of the appellant. The learned Government pleader on the other hand argued that the appellant had been guilty inasmuch as he delibe--rately delayed the entry of mutation and his mala fide was also proved by the fact that he entered the mutation No. 149 Exh. D 1 on 14th July 1972 in respect of the inheritance of Mst. Alam Khatoon d/o Qaim Din, with regard to Khata No. 9 and also entered another Mutation No. 154, Exh. D. 3 on 2nd January 1977, for Khata No. 1 in respect of inheritance of Mst. Alam Khatoon d/o Aimna Bibi. In fact both the properties belonged to one and the same person and thus one Mutation could have been entered. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader argued that according to para. 3.32 of the Land Revenue Manual, the appellant was required to enter the mutation promptly after the death of a right-holder. It is difficult to believe that the information did not reach him. Moreover, no explanation has been offered as to why Karim Bakhsh should depose against him. After hearing both the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned orders could not be sustained. In the first instance, the learned Collector was not justified to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without disclosing sufficient reasons for the same. Moreover, the grounds and the fact of disagreement should also have been served upon the appellant by the Collector to enable him to meet the case against him. We are how--ever, not in agreement with the appellant that the punishment was not in accordance with the penalty as proposed in the show-cause notice The Urdu word "" stands for dismissal. We, therefore, hold that the penalty of dismissal was well-warranted by the terns of the show-cause notice. But we find that the findings of corruption could not be sustained against the appellant and the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer appear to be correct. We agree with the same and the findings of the District Collector, Muzaffargarh and that of the Commissioner, Multan Division, are no: based on any cogent reasons and are accordingly set aside. No doubt, there appears to be some delay in entering the mutation which in our opinion may reflect negligence on the part of the appellant. In the circumstances of the case, we feel it will meet the ends of justice if the pay of the appellant was reduced by two stages. We order accordingly. Consequently, the appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above and the appellant would stand re-instated subject to the punishment above.
8. There will be to order as to costs.