1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.--This appeal, by Special Leave, arises out of the judgment of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal, Lahore, dated 23rd of October 1947, by which Appeal NP. 75 of 1974 was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are, these: The appellant, after undergoing the requisite training and field work, was appointed as a Basic Kanudgo on 8th of March 1960, by the Collector, Muzaffargarh, and his name was included on Ist of November 1962, in the list of Kanungos with the Director, Land Records, Lahore. The appellant, from this date up til 31st of May 1965, worked for the settlement of Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan; and on completion of the work he was posted as Mahal Kanungo for villages Kat Addu and Sitpur. In .1968, Nazar Hussain, the patwari of village Nabi Pur, entered mutation for "Taqseem Qila Bandi" for village Nabi Pur, in Sitpur Kanungo Circle, "under Seal No. 1105" which was not sanctioned by the Naib Tehsildar Malik Zawar Hussain, before his appointment in the Circle. According to the appellant, this mutation was a "revenue administrative action which did not involve any sale or other transaction of the land owners".
3. Further, Mutation Nos. 1106 to 1109 were compared by Ghulam Ahmad, Incharge Kanungo Sitpur Circle, which were entered by Nazar Hussain and duly sanctioned by the Naib Tehsildar before the appellant was posted in that Circle. Similarly, Shamim Haider and Khadim Hussain, Kanungos of the said Circle, had compared Mutations Nos. 1110 to 1127 which were duly entered by true same patwari and sanctioned by the Naib Tehsildar. Mutations Nos. 1128 to 1181 were also entered by the patwaris, Nazar Hussain and Rasool Bakhsh, and so me of them were in favour of WAPDA for sinking tube-wells and involving land measuring 5 to 6 marlas. There were also others involving inheritance of deceased land owners and some of them also related to the sale and Tamleeq which were compared by the appellant and had to be put up before the Naib Tehsildar after Mutation No. 1105, pertaining to "Taqseem Qila Bandi" was sanctioned. It was the appellant's case that this mutation had to be put up by the concerned patwari before the sanctioning authority and to this respect he had performed his duty according to the Rules by giving specific notes in regard to mutations relating to sales and Tamleeq. However, Mutations Nos. 1128 to 1181 were duly sanctioned without Mutation No. 1105, being sanctioned first.
4. While the appellant was serving as Basic Kanungo in Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, the Collector, Muzaffargarh, charge-sheeted him, on 15th of April 1970, for comparing Mutations Nos. 112E to 1181 without Mutation No. 1105 having been sanctioned--- and appointed Tehsildar, Ali Pur, to enquire into the matter. By his report dated. 8th of July 1970, addressed to the Collector, he charged tile appellant for being careless and recommended that be should be warned but the Collector, Muzaffargarh, ordered his compulsory retirement on 14th of November 1970.
5. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner, Multan, and contended before him that as he was on the list of the Director of Land Records, the Collector was not the competent authority to pass the order, dated 14th of November 1970, but this plea did not prevail with the Commissioner who rejected his appeal on 1st of April 1971. The appellant then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Lahore, which too was dismissed on 24th of May 1973. The appellant next filed an appeal before the Punjab Administrative Tribunal. And raised the contention that in his case it was the Director, Land Records, who was competent to order his retirement but the Punjab Administrative Tribunal held that the Notification dated 25th of October 1958, issued by the Board of Revenue by which powers to punish were delegated to various officers on the revenue side held the field and that pursuant thereto the Collector was competent to pass the impugned order as he was his appointing authority and dismissed the appeal.
6. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question as to whether the Collector, Muzaffargarh, had jurisdiction to order his compulsory retirement from service in the context of Circular Letter No. 98/13.16/303 dated 30th of September 1967, issued by the Director of Land Records (Northern Zone), West Pakistan, Lahore, which recited that under the Rules, the powers with regard to the disciplinary matters against a Kanungo candidate or his list rested with him and not the Collector.
7. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that as the appellant was on the list of the Director of Land Records as a Kanungo candidate, his punishing authority was the Director, Land Record, and not the Collector. Muzaffargarh, who had appointed him; and for this contention he relied on Circular Letter No. 98/13. 16/303 dated 30th of September 1967, rule 14 read with Appendices `B' and `C' of the Punjab Kanungos Service Rules, 1945, and Para. 2.13 of the Land Records Manual. Item 8 in both the Appendices refers to the Director, Land Records, as the punishing authority of Basil"', Kanungos and Kanungo candidates on Director of Land Record's list. The circular letter deals with the Director of Land Records as being the punishing authority of a Kanungo candidate under the Rules.
8. While considering the question in regard to the imposition of penalty, the Collector, Muzaffargarh, held that the instructions contained in paragraph 2.13 of the Land Records Manual and Appendices `B & C' of the Punjab Kanungos Service Rules, 1945 have become redundant in view o the promulgation of the West Pakistan, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, and the Delegation of Powers Notification dated 25th of October, 1958, in which the punishing authority is the Collector.In this connection it was further held that rules 2(c) and 3 of the Punjab Kanungos Service Rules, 1945, have also been superseded by rule 4(a) read with rule 2(c) of the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964, in regard to the appointment of Kanungos, whose appointing authority under the latter Legislation was the Collector and not the Director, Land Records. Therefore, he was competent to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement.
9. It is true that by section 3 of the Punjab Kanungo Service Rules, 1945, the Director of Land Records is independently empowered to appoint Kanungos of certain categories and so also the Collector ; and in the case of the Basic Kanungos and settlement matters, it is the Director, Land Records, who is their appointing authority but he has to consult the Collector before making the appointment.
10. Rule 6 prescribes the method of appointment and rule 14 read with Appendices 'B' and 'C' relate to discipline, penalties, appeals and the punishing authority of the several categories of Kanungos.
11. Item 8 of Appendices `B' and `C' relates to Basic Kanungo and Kanungo candidates on Director of Land Record's list whose punishing authority is the Director of Land Records. Para. 2.13 of the Land Records Manual again provided that the Director of Land Records is the punishing authority of the Kanungo candidates whose names are borne on his list but the Collector is empowered to suspend and hold inquiries against the Kanungo candidates. However, on the promulgation of the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964, the power to appoint a Kanungo in the District where the vacancy occurs is given to the Collector and in the case of the District Kanungo, it is the Director of Land Records who is the appointing authority but he has to consult the Collector concerned and in case of disagreement it is the Commissioner whose opinion is final. There is no provision like rule 14 in these Rules but rule 11 provides that in all matters not expressly provided for in the Rules, members of the service shall be governed by such Rules as have been or may hereafter be prescribed by Government and made applicable to them. Item 15 of the Schedule to the Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, prescribes the Collector to be the appointing authority; and authority competent to suspend, reduce in rank, retire compulsorily, remove or dismiss from service. This item not only applies to Kanungo but also to Kanungo candidates. Impliedly, therefore, by the force of this Rule, rule 14 and Appendices `B' and `C' of the Punjab Kanungo Service Rules, 1945, and para. 2.13 of the Land Records Manual stand suspended by the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and A Discipline) Rules, 1960, and the Schedule to the Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958. In this behalf the Circular Letter No.98/B.16/303 dated 30th of September 1967, has no force of its own as it was issued pursuant to rule 14, Appendices `B' and `C' and para. 2.13 of the Land Records Manual. Therefore, it is idle to contend and rely on the redundant provisions for advancing the argument that being a Kanungo candidate o-- the list of the Director of Land Records, his punishing authority eras not the Collector but the Director, Land Records. Even otherwise, on the general principles, it is difficult to deny that the Collector could not be his punishing authority although he was appointed by him. Accordingly, no exception can be taken to the finding that it was the Collector who was his punishing authority.
12. The appeal has no force and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.