' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal filed by Munshi Muhammad Shafi, ex- Patwari against the orders dated 6th October, 1979 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal and that of 15th December, 1979 passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division by which orders he has been dismissed from service. The order of the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal, deals with the two charges against the appellant. After discussing the pros and cons of these charges he found that the Patwari who tampered with the record for obvious motives and there being no extraneous circumstances appearing in his favour, the extreme penalty of dismissal was warranted. The Commissioner, Multan Division confirmed the conclusion so arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner and thus rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner, Multan) while hearing judicial cases at Khanewal on 23rd May, 1979 came across a photostat copy of Khasra Girdawari produced by one Munawar Hussain purporting to have been issued by the appellant.
According to this photostat copy of Khasra No, 5 shown therein were written as in possession of Munawar Hussain whereas in fact these were in possession of the Government vide the original Khasra Girdawari prepared by the appellant. It was also further found that the appellant had incorrectly recorded the specification of the crops. The Deputy Commissioner (District Collector) suspended the appellant and asked the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal to proceed against him. At the same time the Collector also expressed his displeasure over the inefficient conduct of the appellant for not recording the correct specie fication of the crops in the Khasra Girdawari.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Government Pleader assisted by the Departmental representative at length and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. It seems that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, MuBan, both have fallen into error believing that photostat copies of the Khasra Girdawati showing the appellant as its author was a document which was prepared by the appellant, despite the fact that the appellant from the very outset in his explanation made it clear that the said copy so produced by Munawar Hussain was a piece of forgery on his part (i. e, Munawar Hussain) that he has never issued such copy at any time. We have examined the Roznamcha Wagtail pertaining to 31st October, 1978 to satisfy ourselfwhetber any copy was issued in favour of Munawar Hussain by the appellant on that date. What we find is that there is no such entry therein showing that any copy was issued in favour of Munawar Hussain by the appellant. We have very carefully compared the signatures purported to be of the appellant on the photostat with the original record and with his actual signatures on a copy of Khasra Girdawari prepared by him (marked Exh. `A'). We have further examined the general trend of handwriting to which his signatures are affixed on Exh. 'B' and find that photostat copy so produced by Munawar Hussain was not prepared by the appellant. In all fitness of things the Assistant Commissioner who was associated with the enquiry of this charge should have insisted upon Munawar Hussain to produce the original document on the basis of which photostat copy was prepared. Both the officers below i,e, Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner had failed to deal with this most crucial point in this case particularly when the appellant at all stages of this case has disowned to be author of the copy produced by Munawar Hussain. We have brought the original record in this regard on the file so that the case of the appellant can always be verified from these documents which fully substantiate his stand i,e, he was never an author of the copy so attributed to him and thus under no circumstances any motive could be attributed to him of corruption in the matter. Paragraph 5 of the Commissioner's judgment reads as follows :- ' A perusal of the record shows that the charges have been fully proved against the appellant and he was given fall opportunity to defend himself. The appellant has not been able to prove his innocence."
We are at a loss to understand to which record reference has been made by the Commissioner, Multan Division, as the record so produced before this Tribunal by the Department itself fully exonerates the appellant from the charge of preparing a wrong Khasra Girdawari and fully supports his stand that a copy in dispute was never prepared by him and it was Munawar Hussain who by some ingenious methods forged the documents in his favour to take undue and unlawful advantage from the Collector. If this matter had been fully proved by the two officers below and the appellant had been given a chance to defend himself by calling an expert in his defence to prove whether the handwriting and the signatures on the photostat copy were his or someone else, the matter would have been settled once for all at that level.
' With regard to copy of Khasra Girdawari relating to Khasra Nos. 133/3, 4, etc. The appellant has admitted that the discrepancy in the entry relating to the kind of crop was inadvertent. We also find that this inadvertent mistake did not in any manner allow anybody to take undue advantage of this mistake. We would have upheld both the impugned orders, if there was sufficient data to prove the guilt of the appellant with which he was charged but op the contrary we find that record of the case before us in no manner justifies the conclusion that he prepared a wrong Khasra Girdawari in favour of Munawar Hussain. 6 The result is that we proceed to set aside both the orders of Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal as well as that of the Commissioner, Multan Division and accept the appeal before us.