' M. SALEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Munshi Akbar All ex-Patwari, appellant, has filed this appeal against the order of Collector, Sheikhupura, dated 24th October, 1977 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissiorne Lahore Division which was rejected on 4th November, 1978.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one ManzOor Ahmad claiming to be the special attorney of one Miran flux submitted an application to Collector, Sheikhupura, stating that about one-and-half years ago he had met the appellant in connection with the allotment of agricultural land and the appellant had taken Rs, 4,200 as illegal gratification from him. The case was referred to the Tehsildar for enquiry. The Enquiry Officer reported that the charge was not proved but recommended that the appellant be transferred from the circle. The Commissioner, however, disagreed with the report and appointed Ch. Muhammad Hussain, as Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the last enquiry report, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the appellant and ultimately dismissed the appellant from service on 30th June, 1976. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner, Lahore who accepted the appeal but remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner who on 24th October, 1977 again dismissed the appellant from service after giving him a show-cause notice. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
3. The appellant has urged that the Assistant Commissioner has never appreciated that the allegations are false, not warranted by the record and fabricated at the instance of Malik Muhammad Siddique.
4. The parties have been heard and the record seen. It is alleged that Rs, 4,200 were paid in the presence of Malik Siddique and Inayat. Out of this Rs, 1,700 were returned but the appellant refused to pay the balance of Rs, 2,500. The appellant alleges enmity on the part of Malik Siddique and Inayat and that he had nothing to do with the claim of Miran Bux. Regarding Malik Siddique the allegation of the appellant is that Siddique's daughter had eloped with a relative of the appellant and the appellant had not been able to help Malik Siddique when he came for he in the matter.
There is no other independent witness. In view of the fact that ill-will existed between the appellant and Malik Siddique and Inayat, their evidence cannot be relied upon and the appellant has to be given the benefit of doubt. The appeal is accepted and the order of dismissal is set aside.