' M. SALELM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Manzoor Hussain, the appellant, is impugning the order dated 7th May, 1979 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum, whereby the appellant was dismissed from service for grave misconduct. An appeal made to the Commissioner was rejected on 30th July, 1979.
2. The appellant was charged with the following in the show.Cause notice :-
(1) That you in connivance with Raja Muhammad Yaqoob Patwari Choa Saidan Shah (now posted at Sarkalan) incorrectly paid compensation of Khasra Nos. 4263 and 3407 situated in the area of village Choa Saidan Shah amounting to Rs, 1,45,608.68 in connection with acquisition of land for Microwave Station Choa Saidan Shah. This compensation was paid in 1976.
(2) That you as Reader to Land Acquisition Collector/Assistant Commissioner (Saeed Akhtar Shah) prepared the land acquisition file against the rules. Public notice under section 9 of Land Acquisition Act was not (3) given. Only the names of the persons to whom the compensation was to be paid were given. You drafted the notice in such a manner that the general public remained unaware about its contents.
(4) That you managed to pay the compensation without public notice in contravention of section 9 of Land Acquisition Act of Khasra Nos. 4263 and 3407 to Muhammad Khan etc. Dishonestly and to achieve this object revenue record was tampered with.
(5) That according to the report of Girdawar Choa Saidan Shah the entry of Khasra Nos. 4263 and 3407 shows "Maqbooza Malkan Deh". You dishonestly detached this report from the file. Had this report not been detached, the compensation could not have been paid incorrectly.
3. The parties were heard and the record examined. The contention of the appellant is that as Reader to the Resident Magistrate it was not his function to do any of the acts for which he was charged and that he could not arrogate to himself the powers of the Assistant Commissioner (as Land Acquisition Collector) whose patent laxity, carelessness and misconduct in the matter had been admitted by the respondents. On the other hand, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was deeply involved in the whole scandalous proceeding whereby revenue record was tampered with, compensation wrongly assessed, compensation paid to unauthorised persons and land acquisition proceedings conducted against the rules.
4. Taking the charges one by one, we find in respect of Charge No. 1 that the appellant had nothing to do officially with assessm ent of the compensation which was the duty of the revenue staff. The compensation was approved by the A. C. And paid out in the form of crossed cheque issued by the A. C. The respondents have not been able to make out a case to show that the appellant could exercise his influence or authority to effect wrong assessment or have it paid to undeserving persons. The charge is not proved.
5. Charge No, 2 is not specific and is difficult to sustain.
6. Charge No, 3 relates to the issuance of a public notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant is said to have drafted the notice in such a manner that the general public remained unaware about its contents. The respondent department has not been able to convince us as to how the actual responsibility of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue a correct notice fell on the shoulders of the appellant who merely drafted the notice which was not issued under his authority. This charge is, therefore, not sustained.
7. In Charge No, 4 the point made is that consequent upon tampering of record in respect of Khasra Nos. 4263 and 3407 compensation was paid to certain persons dishonestly. We have already held in case No, 306/462 of 1979 In re Muhammad Yaqub, Patwari, that Muhammad Yaqoob had not made any changes in the record. Therefore, the appellant's collusion with Muhammad Yaqub in respect of interpolation of the revenue record cannot be made the subject of a charge.
8. According to Charge No, 5, the appellant is said to have removed from the relevant file the report of the Girdawar, Choa Saidan Shah, showing Khasra Nos. 4263 and 3407 as being maqbooza malkan deh. It has not been established that the appellant was exclusively in charge of the file.
Probably the appellant was suspected of committing this act but the suspicion is not confirmed by any evidence.
In view of the above, we cannot find or way to upholding the impugned orders of 7th May, 1979 and 30th July, 1979 and accept the appeal of the appellant against these orders.