1. ' M. SALEEM CHAHDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-This appeal is filed by Muhammad Iqbal, ex-Junior Clerk, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, against the order of Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, dated 28th September, 1972 and the order of Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, dated 10th March, 1973, dismissing the appellant from service and maintaining his dismissal respectively. The facts as disclosed in this appeal are that the appellant in the year 1960-61 was posted as Wasilbaqi Nawis in Tehsil Hasilpur, in the year 1960-61. He was transferred from the aforesaid station on 29th June, 1962 and was re-posted to Hasilpur tehsil in the same capacity some where in 1965-66 in order to impart training of wasil Baqi work to the Tehsil staff. He remained therein Hasilpur Tehsil for a period of year or so. The then Divisional Revenue Accountant, Maulvi Atta Muhammad, Bahawalpur District checked Register of Accounts of Tehsil Hasilpur and detected certain bogus entries of the recovery of Government money in the Register of Khataunis for the period 1960-62 and also some short recoveries in lieu of abiana for the Kharif 1960 and Rabi 1962, vide Khatauni No, 8, village Chaila Waahan. In lieu of first total, there was a loss of Rs, 20,646/47 and for the second item a loss of Rs, 2,000 was incurred by the Government. The Divisional Revenue Accountant accordingly brought the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur who ordered that the appellant be charge sheeted for causing the loss of Rs, 22,646/47 to the Government. The appellant was accordingly charged for misconduct under the West Pakistan Government Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. It was alleged that a sum of Rs, 28,112/47, was due from Abdul Hamid, Lambardar, Village Chila Wahan in respect of recoveries from Villages Ara Buddu, Chaila Wahan, Zor Kat and Gulbeer Cherain, out of which only Rs, 5,466 were recovered. The rest of the recovery was made up. On receipt of that reply from the appellant an enquiry was held by Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan, P. C. S., Magistrate First Class Bahawalpur, who on 3rd July, 1972, reported that the appellant was guilty. The appellant was served on )13th July, 1972, with a show-cause notice for a major penalty viz, dismissal from service, under rule 4 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. After the receipt of the reply of the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner Bahawalpur, vide his order dated 29th August, 1972 dismissed the appellant from service. On an appeal to the Commissioner, by the appellant the order of dismissal was maintained vide order dated 10th March, 1973, by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. The appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 2nd November, 1974 to impugn the order of the Deputy Commissioner and also of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division.
2. ' In support of this appeal the appellant submitted that the Inquiry officer has clearly observed that there was no direct evidence indicting the appellant with the alleged tampering with of the entries in the Khatauni Register. Thus in the absence of any such evidence he could not be penalised. The appellant in this behalf relied up on PLD 1971 SC 838 to contend that mere suspicion howsoever strong was not enough to condemn the appellant. He further submitted that in fact the criminal proceedings were also initiated against him on the same allegations but ix was acquitted on 9th July, 1974 by the Special Judge Anti Corruption Bahawalpur, as the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against the appellant. With regard to misappropriation of any amount and the case regarding framing an incorrect record by the appellant was concerned, the case of the prosecution was held to doubtful. According to the appellant the aforesaid acquittal constituted complete exoneration of the appellant of his involvement in the charges above. The appellant next submitted that he remained in Tehsil firstly during the period 1961-62 and on his second posting during the years 1965 66. Since the record had remained in a number of hands thus no responsibility could be fixed upon the appellant exclusively for tampering with the record. He further alleged that it was fairly an old matter and the enquiry was held after the lapse of about 10 years but he was not allowed to examine the relevant documents despite his express request in the behalf. Thus he had been denied the adequate opportunity to defend himself. The next contention of the appellant was that Ata Muhammad, Divisional Revenue Accountant, who appeared as a witness against the appellant was not an impartial and independent witness.
3. According to the appellant he owed money to him which was not paid to him despite reminders and he had to make a complaint against him. The fact that the relations between the appellant and the Divisional Revenue Accountant, Ata Muhammad witness were strained, was also supported by the evidence of Fazal Illahi, who appeared as a defence witness in favour of the appellant. Lastly, the appellant also submitted that since the amount in question had already been deposited by Abdul Humid Lambardar, therefore, there was no material loss to the Government and as such the punishment of dismissal was harsh and uncalled for. With these submissions, the appellant pressed for the acceptance of this appeal.
4. ' On the other hand, the learned Government pleader, Mr. A. G. Humayun, argued that the case against the appellant was proved to the hilt. According to the learned Government pleader the interest of the appellant in Abdul Hamid, Lambardar, who was the direct beneficiary of the incorrect entries was almost admitted by the appellant inasmuch as his wife and Abdul Hameed jointly purchased the agricultural land in village Noorpur Goth from Abdul Hussain Superintendent of Police, and thus they were the co-owners. According to the Government pleader, the appellant was the only person who had the motive to tamper with the entries in order to conceal his fraud. He pointed out that initially the appellant had made the wrong entries in order to benefit Abdul Hamid, Lambardar to the extent of Rs, 22,646/47, but subsequently fearing the detection of the same at the occasion of checking by Ata Muhammad Divisional Revenue Accountant, he tampered with the entries and by applying erasures and cuttings corrected the entries although the money had not been deposited by that time. Thus there was no escape from the conclusion that the appellant was the only person who was responsible for the cuttings and tampering with the Khatauni Register. He also pointed out that Ata Muhammad, witness has distinctly stated that he identified the writing of the appellant and he said that the cuttings were in the hand of the appellant. The appellant had failed to impeach his testimony in cross-examination. He argued that the fact that Lambardar Abdul Hamid deposited the equal amount in the Government Treasury. Subsequently clearly established the complicity of the appellant in the case. As regards the contention of the appellant that he was not allowed personal bearing, he has failed to establish the same. The learned Government Pleader argued that regarding the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, nothing turned upon the same. In the first instance, he pointed out that the acquittal had been on the ground of giving him the benefit of doubt. In the alternative, Mr. Humayun argued that acquittal in a criminal case was no ground to withhold the departmental proceedings against the appellant which were different in scope and object. He also pointed out that the evidence against the appellant was documentary and his enmity against Ata Muhammad did not make any difference.
5. ' As regards the plea of the appellant as the refusal to have access to the documents, he submitted that the plea is an after thought as the appellant never made the grievance of the same at any stage in the departmental proceedings either before the Inquiry Officer or the competent Authority or even to the Appellate Authority. Thus there is no substance in this plea. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that this appeal has no merits and it must fail. There is a good deal of merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the only party interested in changing the entries in the Recovery Register was the appellant. We are not prepared to believe that it was a mere coincidence that all the tampering or erasures were affected to the benefit of Abdul Hamid, Lambardar a co-owner in Agricultural Land with the wife of the appellant, Abdul Hamid against whom the amount in question was outstanding had been wrongly shown to have paid the same in the Register Khatauni. Thus from the record, it appears that the appellant was the only person who bad motive to tamper with the records. This fact is further supported by Abdul Hamid depositing the money in question, the moment the discrepency in question came to light, without being called upon to do so. It could be safely inferred that it was at the Instance of the appellant. Finally, the statement of Ata Muhammad, Divisional Revenue Accountant, clearly implicated the appellant who identified the handwriting of the appellant and the appellant failed to , impeach his testimony. The plea of enmity set up by the appellant(' against him had little merit in the face of documentary evidence which hardly left any room for doubt. In the circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the Competent Authority and also the Commissioner that the appellant was the person who had motive and in fact was responsible for tampering with the records in question. The observation of the Inquiry Officer as to the absence of the direct evidence only means that there was no evidence available to show that the appellant was seen tampering with the relevant entries As regards the plea of the appellant as to lack of opportunity the same is equally devoid of any force. The appellant never raised this plea a before the departmental authorities and we are afraid that we cannot entertain the same at this stage which rather sounded as an after thought. The acquittal of the appellant by the Special Judge is also no bar to the departmental proceedings more particularly when the appellant has been c acquitted by the Court by giving him the benefit of doubt. We accordingly find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.