K.B. ABID, (MEMBER-II)--- The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Civil Appeal No,483 of 1999 dated 26-6-2008 have passed the following orders:---
(i) After arguing the case at some length, the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab, as well as learned counsel for the respondent have agreed for re-decision of Service Appeal No,2368 of 1997 by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, on merits regardless of treatment meted out to some other Sub-Registrars.
(ii) In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 1-11-1997 is set aside. Consequently, the Service Appeal No,2368 of 1997, shall be deemed to be pending before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, for a decision afresh, in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of two months. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10-7-2008.
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant was served with the charge sheet containing the charge that he had connived with the parties concerned, registered the following sale-deeds under value in utter disregard of the valuation table notified by D.C. Sargodha.
List of Documents Registered Sale-deed Nos.726, 120, 93, 9, 564, 82, 166, 167, 290, 149, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 669, 278, 739, 816, 679, 831, 775, 198, 92, 211, 2302, 63 to 78.
3. The appellant had submitted reply to the charges and taken the plea that the charges levelled against him are baseless. As contended by appellant the charges are based on Audit and Inspection Notes prepared by Stamp Auditor. As per prescribed procedure, the defects pointed out by Auditor are taken by local office, the itemwise replies are sent up to BOR. This practice is in vogue in all offices. If shortage is pointed out. The same is recovered from parties concerned and amount is deposited into Government Treasury. Regarding validity of sale-deeds, the appellant claimed that stamp duty levied in accordance with valuation table notified by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant had also pleaded that the said documents were registered in compliance of the decree passed by the Civil Court Sargodha. These decrees were passed on the specific performance of contract. The values given in these documents are sale price contracted by the parties and not value of the property given in valuation table notified by the Collector.
4. The Inquiry Officer had prepared the inquiry report and recorded his observation that the appellant had appeared in inquiry proceedings for few times and absented from proceedings for most of the time despite the fact that he was required to join the proceedings but he never took it seriously. By relying on record of respondents and reply of appellant, the findings were given by inquiry officer that the charges against the accused are proved. He is guilty of misconduct under the Punjab Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. The Inquiry Officer had also consulted the complaint filed by Ch. Noor Muhammad HVC (retired), wherein he had categorically alleged that sale-deeds were registered by the appellant under-valued with some ulterior motives. The authorized officer after going through the inquiry report, had issued the show-cause notice to the appellant on 2-8-1995. The reply to this notice was furnished by the appellant. The additional defence in notice of authorized officer was that being chronic patient, he had undergone four major operations during the inquiry proceedings. Furthermore due to business in Government job and visit of VIPs, he could not attend the inquiry proceedings. Regarding deficiency of stamp duty appellant explained that it is being recovered as arrear of land revenue. The authorized officer had given the recommendations that charge against the appellant is proved and major penalty may be imposed upon the appellant. The Secretary to Government of Punjab Revenue Department had given the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant under Rule 8 of E&D Rules, 1975. The appellant had appeared before the authority on 26-11-2005. The proceedings of personal hearing were postponed on request of appellant but on subsequent dates he remained absent on various dates without any reasons. After perusal of report of the Inquiry Officer, the recommendations of authorized officer and record, it was concluded by authority that the appellant has not produced any fresh evidence, for exoneration. The penalty of dismissal from service under E&D Rules, 1975 along with the recovery of loss of Rs,1,70,641 was awarded to appellant. The departmental representation filed against this order was also rejected.
5. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant had approached the PST. After examination of pros and cons of this case, the penalty order dated 29-4-2007, was set aside on the grounds that discrimination cannot be created between two civil servants having the same charges and similar circumstances. The Revenue Department aggrieved by the order of PST had filed the representation before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and after due consideration, the Honourable Supreme Court has remanded case to PST for consideration on merits. After direction of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan this Tribunal had called the record from respondent party in Sargodha District. The record has been cross-examined in the presence of the appellant and departmental representative. The objection of appellant about notification of valuation table has no basis because it was duly notified and circulated to all concerned in District Sargodha.
Furthermore, appellant in his reply to the charges has relied upon the same valuation table which shows that the valuation table was circulated by the Deputy Commissioner. Regarding ex parte proceedings, the plea of appellant being patient is baseless because he had not informed the inquiry officer about health problem supported with medical certificates. The appellant again had remained absent before Appellate Authority for personal hearing. The defence of appellant regarding levying of stamp duty in compliance with the decrees passed by Civil Courts is not supported with specific orders, The appellant was legally bound to charge the rates notified in valuation table 190 i.e, under Stamp Act. The findings in respect of registered sale-deeds, cross- examined during Tribunal proceedings are as follows:---
(a) Sale-deed No,726.
' It was signed on 13-5-1989. The measurement of plot is 1 Kanal, 5 Marla-178 1/2 sq. Ft. Situated in Chak No, 42/N.B. This was registered for Rs,3,00,000. The appellant had claimed that the Inspector of Stamps wrongly had mentioned Chak No,42/N.B. Instead of Chak No,45/N.B. As pleaded by appellant the rate of factory area, mentioned at Serial No,71(b) of the valuation table was applicable to this document whereas the Inspector of Stamps had applied Serial No,71(A), which is not correct. The appellant further maintained that rate at Serial No,71(b) of Valuation Table @ Rs,9200 per Marla considering it residential locality was applicable. The respondent authorities have justified the rate of Rs,17250 per Marla being commercial locality surrounded by factories. This document is under-valued and not according to the valuation given at Serial No,71(a). The deficiency of Rs,12200 pointed out by departmental authority is correct.
(b) Deed No,120.
' This is a sale-deed of plot measuring 5 Marlas and 15 sq. Ft situated in Chak No,47/N.B. Registered for value of Rs,6000. According to Serial No,7 of Valuation Table, the value of plot comes Rs,29067 i.e, Rs,5750 per Marla. As against required amount of Rs,2475 as Stamp Duty, only Rs,510 were charged, thus caused the deficiency/loss of Rs,1965 in stamp duty.
(c) Deed No,93.
' The plot Measuring 3 Marlas, 117 sq. Ft was registered for Rs,3000. As per Serial No,23 of Valuation Table, the rate of Rs,3450 per Marla was required to be charged. The total value at this rate comes as Rs,11834.' The required Stamp Duty was Rs,1010 whereas it was charged as Rs,255. The deficiency of Rs,755 was caused in stamp duty.
(d) Sale-deed No,290.
' This is a sale-deed of plot measuring 5 Marlas 153 Sq.Ft situated in Mumtaz Colony it was registered for Rs,22000. The value of property in question' was to be charged as per Serial No,43(b) of Valuation Table i.e, Rs,6900 per Marla. The actual value of the plot comes to Rs,38,500. The Stamp Duty of Rs,3273 was required to be charged whereas Rs,1870 were charged. The deficiency of Rs,1403 in stamp duty was caused.
6. These were sample deeds examined in Tribunal proceedings. The entire sale-deeds are not on the record of respondents. In all deeds there is shortage of stamp duty. The appellant has tried to dispute the localities of these plots but no specific document have been placed which could show that plots are not located on the site mentioned in the charge sheet or Revenue Record. The department has classified these plots into residential, commercial and main roads. Furthermore, it has also been minutely examined by this Tribunal that registration of these sale-deeds was signed by appellant only and no other Revenue official had signed these documents. The entire responsibility for registration of under value documents lies on the appellant. He had charged the arbitrary rates without observing the rates notified by the District Collector. He had violated the policy direction of the department.
7. The section 48 of Stamp Act specifies that all duties, penalties and other sums required to be paid under this Chapter may be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the movable, property of the person from whom the same are due, or by any other process for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. The departmental authorities have imposed the recovery of deficient stamp duty on appellant, whereas it should have been charged upon the private party. The recovery of the deficient amount from the appellant is not justified and against provisions of Stamp Act.
8. On the basis of above-mentioned facts provisions of law, and policy of the revenue department, the charge of inefficiency, negligence and violation of rates notified by District Collector is proved against the appellant. The appellant has served in the department for many years. The lenient view has to be taken. Major penalty of dismissal from service is converted into compulsory retirement from service. However, the outstanding stamp duty will be recovered from the parties as arrear of land revenue and not from the appellant. With these orders, the appeal is disposed of.