S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Mr. Bashir Ahmad Kanungo (Cons.) has filed this appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the A. D. C. (Cons.) dated 18th November, 1978 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service on account of misuse of official position, corruption and tampering with the record. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order being not by the competent authority, the same may be declared ultra vires and he may be re-instated in service on this score.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Bashir Ahmad Kanungo was suspended vide order dated 12th September, 1975 by Mr. Abdul Majid A. D. C. (Cons.), Lahore for abusing his official position as Government Servant, committing forgery while posted as Patwari Chak Sindhu, and obtaining 20 squares of land in the name of his wife and other relatives without obtaining the orders of the competent authority. He was charge-sheeted on 17th May, 1976 vide Annexure `D'. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet but that did not find favour with the competent authority and he was dismissed vide order dated 27th January, 1979 of A. D. C. (Cons.) as he failed to appear before the said authority. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, and failed to succeed.
Hence this appeal.
3. Without going into the merits of this case we are required to decide the legal question whether the competent authority in the present case of the appellant was A. D. C. (Cons.) or the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel has relied on Muhammad Akram and five others v. A. D. C.
(Cons.), Gujranwala and others the judgment of this Tribunal wherein it was held that in matter of patwaris as the competent authority viould not be that A. D. C. (Cons.) but the Collector concerned, viz, the A. C. Similarly he has also placed reliance on a copy of Memo. No, 1257/78/ 421-CHD-111 dated 11th June, 1978 from the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, to the A.
D. C. (Cons.), Lahore. In the Memo the contention of the learned counsel finds support wherein it has been laid down that it would be the authority of the D. C. Concerned to take action in such matters, and not the A. D. C. (Cons.). In view of the normal law as well as the opinion of the Board of Revenue, we have no alternative but to set aside the impugned order out his legal ground with the direction that a fresh enquiry shall be held against the appellant in accordance with the law by the competent authority. He will be considered under suspension from the date of his removal from service till finalisation of the departmental proceedings. 1981 PLC (C. S.) 35