' M. SALEM CHAUDRRY (CPIAIRMAN).-Muhammad Azizullah Khan Sumbal, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of dismissal of the appellant by the Government of the Puniab.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in the Punjab Forest Service on 25th May, 1956, as a result of Competitive Examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission. He was lastly posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Gujrat. In pursuance of Martial Law Regulation No, 37, the appellant submitted a Statement of Assets to the Special Committee constituted under the Improper Acquisition of Property (Special Committee) Ordinance (IX of 1969) for scrutiny. The . Appellant was suspended in December, 1969, under Martial Law Regulation No, 58 and was served with a Charge Sheet and a Statement of Allegations on 24th January, 1970. He submitted a written reply to the Charge Sheet and appeared before the Tribunal set up under M. L.
R. 58 in the last week of March, 1970. On 4th April, 1970, the appellant was dismissed from service.
3. The following arc the three charges in the charge-sheet against the appellant :-
(I) Whereas, you Mr. Mohammad Azizullah Khan Sumba', Divisional Forest Officer (Now under suspension) while posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Gujral during the year 1968 dishonestly got 17 Shishant trees illicitly cut from the Government Forest by your subordinate staff and thereby caused huge wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding pecuniary gain to yourself, you are thus charged for "corruption" ;
(2) And whereas, in the declaration of Assets and Properties submitted under Ordinance IX of 1969 you wilfully gave incorrect information about the bank balance and in order to conceal your ill- gotten wealth dishonestly inflated the income from agricultural Property, you are thus charged for "Misconduct" :
(3) And whereas, you enjoy persistent reputation for corruption you are, therefore, charged for being "corrupt".
' The statement of Allegations in respect of the three charges state :-
(I) Mr. Mohammad Azizullah Khan Sumbal during 1968 by abusing his official position as Divisional Forest Officer, Gujrat, got illicitly cut 17 Shisham ttees worth Rs, 10,000 through his subordinate Forest Staff from the Government Forest, on the bank of Lower Canal Jhelum, and after turning the same into planks transported the same to Lahore in Truck No, LED-6960.
(ii) In Form No. 1 Part C, he declared that on 22nd April, 1969, he had a bank balance of Rs, 840. In his reply to the questionnaire served by the Special Committee he stated that his bank balance on the said date was 1454/67. He also admitted a loan liability of Rs, 10,000 which on 21st April, 1969 he had obtained from his friend S. Saleem for the Purchase of shares of Daud Petroleum. In fact he had obtained Rs, 60,000 from United Bank Gujrat on 20th February 1969, for purchase of shares. Out of this amount he only invested Rs, 2,500 for the purchase of shares of the above firm and returned the rest to the Bank. Thus obviously there was no necessity for him to obtain in the loan, from Mr. Saleem, Manager of the Bank. It appears that the loan of Rs, 10,000 from Mr. Saleem was shown simply to reduce his actual bank balance of Rs, 10,374.
' He has shown that from his agricultural property at Mianwali he was getting an Income of Rs, 6,000 per annum whereas according to the revenue record his appoximate net income from this Property was only Rs, 2,800.
(iii) Inference is drawn from the opinion of the people who have come in contact with him.
4. Apart from the merits the main contentions of the appellant were (i) Charges did not fall within the purview of M. L. R.-58 and therefore the order of the respondent was in excess of jurisdiction and a nullity in law.
(ii) Appellant was not given reasonable and fair opportunity by non-disclosure of facts, evidence or material on which the charge-sheet and statement of allegations were based. Moreover he could not cross-examine the witnesses who might have deposed against him. Therefore hearing by the Tribunal violated principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions of M. L. R.-58.
(iii) He could not be charged for the second time in respect of matters mentioned in the declaration made before the Special Committee.
5. We have considered the main contentions of the appellant but find no force in these objections.
Whatever was done by the Tribunal was in accordance with the provisions of M. L. R.-58. Moreover there could be no objection to the charges regarding assets being referred to the Tribunal under M.
L. R.-58 even if they had been scrutinized by the Special Committee set up under the Ordinance of 1969.
6. (i) It was held by the Tribunal that Charge No, (i) was not proved against the appellant.
(ii) As regards charge No, (ii) the allegations are in three Parts :-
(a) The first allegation is that the appellant wilfully gave incorrect information as in Form No. 1 Part C he declared that his bank balance was Rs, 840 on 22nd April, 1969 but in reply to the questionnaire served by the Special Committee he submitted that the bank balance on the said date was Rs, 1454/67. The contention of the appellant is that the figures communicated by him in the first instance were on the basis of a certificate given by the Bank, which indicated a debit balance of Rs, 2658 on 21st April, 1969. Later on it was found out to be incorrect and when it came to his notice, he himself corrected the figures. The Bank indicated that they had inadvertently nientioned the amount of the balance as on 21st May, 1969. Instead of 21st April 1969. Thus the mistake in Form I, Part C was due to the incorrect certificate supplied by the Bank. The contention of the Government is that it was the bad and dishonest intention of the appellant that led him to give.
Incorrect figute and that he had communicated the incorrect figure in his own interest. It is not proved that the figures communicated by the Bank, in the first instance, were incorsectly given at the behest of the appellant in order to benefit him. This Part of the charge is not proved against the appellant.
(b) The second part of the charge is that there was no need for the appellant to obtain a loan of Rs, 10,000 from Mr. Saleem when the Bank allowed him an overdraft of Rs, 60,000 and this was done in order to reduce his actual bank balance of Rs, 10,374. The appellant has contended that all the transactions took place before his suspension and are duly documented in the Bank. It was necessary for the appellant to obtain a loan of Rs, 10,000 from Mr. Saleem plus Rs, 12,830. 13 in order to get an overdraft of Rs, 37,159,87 from the Bank in order to make a total of Rs, 60,000 which he required for investment in shares. He actually applied for shares worth Rs, 60,000 but was allotted shares amounting to Rs, 2,500 only. In view of the small number of shares allotted to him the loan was returned to Mian Saleem Akhtar. Since all the transactions were documented and not made with any bad intention no charge is made out against the appellant.
(c) The third part of the charge is that he showed his income from agricultural proporty at Mianwali to be Rs, 60,000 per annum, whereas according to the Revenue record his net income from agricultural property at Mianwali was Rs, 2,800 only. This was income from 38 acres of land.
According to the appellant the Patwari who made the estimate of Rs, 2,800 did not belong to the relevant circle and the Patwari was not produced to give evidence so that he could have been cross-examined by the appellant. It is admitted by the Government that the 38 acres of agricultural land in Mianwali were canal irrigated. Moreover this income relates to the period prior to 1962 when the land was being looked after by the father of the appellant and the appellant was being paid a lump sum by his father. An income of Rs, 125 per year per acre is not a high or inflated figure in case land under canal irrigation. This part of the charge against the appellant is, therefore, not proved.
7. The third charge relates to the reputation of the appellant as a corrupt officer. This inference has been drawn by the Government from the people who came in contact with the appellant. We have seen the record of the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant. Even those officers who have given adverse of lukewarm reports have not considered the reputation of the appellant to be corrupt. Government have also produced the Anti-Corruption Establishment's files of the officer. Ia April 19E9 an enquiry was ordered against the officer of the allegations that he owned several squares of land in Mianwali, a palatial bruilding in Mianwali, shares worth lacs and is a debauch and a man of ill-repute. The Anti-Corruption Establishment carried out a detailed probe for more than eight months and could not find anything substantial against the officer, except the land referred to in charges under M L R 58 and the transaction for the purchase of shares. These two have been disi cussed in detail in paras. 6 (1) and para. 6 (iii) above and nothing A objectionable has been noticed in the conduct of the officer. The genera charge is not substantiated by any record or reputation, and is there fore not proved against the appellant.
7. On merits the appellant has been able to satisfy the Service Tribunal that none of the charges levied against him during M. L. R.5lSIn proceedings are proved against the appellant. The appeal of Muhammad Aziz Ullah Khan Sumbal is therefore accepted.