' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Aslam Ex-Girdawar has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the orders dated 2nd June, 1977 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala and that of order dated 8th September, 1979 of the Commissioner, Lahore Division dismissing the appellant from service.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Girdawar in Tehsil Hafizabad was found to have prepared a document with forged signatures of Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Khan Bosan (EAC) and Mr. Akhtar Saeed, former D.C., Gujranwala in collusion with few other accused. He was also found having prepared a bogus letter with forged signatures of Mr. Wahid- ud-Din Rathore, Deputy Secretary (Rural) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. These forgeries were committed to manipulate sale of a piece of land in favour of one Bashir Ahmed. This allotment had already been cancelled under section 10(11) of Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala was appointed as Enquiry Officer who issued a show-cause notice to the appellant and found after looking into his reply and evidence against him that he was guilty of this offence. The learned counsel for the appellant who addressed us during the course of preliminary arguments contended that the appellant was not given any opportunity to defend himself and the orders of both the officers were arbitrary.
3. We have perused carefully both the judgments of the Assistant Commissioner as well as that of the Commissioner, Lahore Division and find that during the enquiry conducted by EAC(R)
Gujranwala, after a show-cause notice issued to the appellant, his reply against these charges was hardly satisfactory. Record of the appellant's service reveals that he has been under suspension most of the time and it also contains punishment ranging from censure to dismissal from service.
With this checkered record of service, the appellant on top of all had the audicity and courage to commit forgeries of a very serious nature, therefore his dismissal by the impugned orders would be least punishment. Whereas he should have been proceeded against for this criminal offence. It will be also desirable to mention that we have already dismissed his Appeal No, 180 of 1980 which was also against his dismissal for remaining absent from duty, living outside his circle and for having proved inefficient in his duties as Patwari.
After going through the two judgments and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed by him, we are of the considered opinion that the orders of dismissal so pronounced in this case are fully justified. We proceed to dismiss this appeal in limine. Announced in the presence of the parties.