' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Abdul Hameed, ex-Patwari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the orders dated 1st July, 1980 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sadiqabad and dated 19th February, 1981 passed by the learned Commissioner of Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, and has prayed that by virtue of this appeal, these two impugned orders be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted as Patwari in Helga Rahimabad, one Nam Ahmed Shah son of Jewan Shah, submitted an application alleging therein that the appellant had demanded and received from him as illegal gratification a sum of Rs, 400 for issuing copies of Register Haqdaran Zamin. Charge-sheet was served on the appellant to which he submitted a detailed reply which resulted in enquiry held by E. A. C. Sadiqabad, who was appointed Enquiry Officer by the learned Assistant Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of accepting Rs, 400 as bribe and submitted the case to the A.C. For necessary action. The learned A. C. Vide his order dated 1st July, 1980 held that as the Patwari had a fair service record therefore, taking a bit lenient view of the situation the order of his removal kom service would be sufficient penalty for his offence. It was further observed that the name of the appellant would be struck of from the Candidature Register of his service. Aggrieved against the said order of removal and his name being struck of from the register of candidature he filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner who vide his vernacular order dated 19th February, 1981, maintained the decision of the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel that according to the complainant's statement the illegal gratification was paid in the presence of one Bashir. It has been pointed out that as the said Bashir was not produced, therefore, it would not be safe to rely on the solitary statement of the complainant without any corroboration. The learned counsel has further pointed discrepancy which according to him would be material in this case by submitting that the complainant in his application addressed to the Chairman, Vigilance Committee, had stated that the appellant demand Rs, 1,000 from him and after receiving Rs, 400 postponed the issue of the relevant copies till he had received the remaining Rs, 600. According to the learned counsel, Ghulam Farid, who appeared in support of the complaint stated that the appellant had demanded Rs, 2,500 instead of Rs, 1,000, therefore, this discrepancy was material to show that the statement of the complainant was contrary to the statement of the witness. In this case learned counsel has mostly relied on the discrepant statement of the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer to show that such like unreliable evidence would not, be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. The grievance had been made that neither the Commissioner nor the Assistant Commissioner have applied their mind, therefore, the punishment so imposed upon the appellant was unjustified.
5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments submitted by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur, and has submitted that the evidence on the record was sufficient to substantiate the charge of corruption against the appellant. With regard to the status of the person who demanded copy of Jama Bandi from the appellant. The learned District Attorney submitted that it would be incorrect to say that there was no locus standi with such persons to demand copy of the revenue record as factually the complainant and P. W. Ghulam Farid were the private servants of Sardar Mohammad Amin Khan Leghari of Rahimabad who wanted the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin, and they acted under the order of their landlord. In this way, according to the learned District Attorney, appellant was duty bound to provide the copy.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments made by both the parties and find that the E. A. C. And Magistrate 1st Class Sadiqabed, who conducted the enquiry against the appellant has categorically mentioned in his report that Bashir P. W. Was not produced in support of the statement of Nazir Ahmad Shah. Therefore, it cannot be said that this feature of the case was not present in his mind when he found the appellant guilty. He has relied on the statement of Nazir Ahmad Shah as well as the statements made by Ghulam Farid and Atta Muhammad and observed that the evidence of these witnesses was liable to be accepted on the ground that it was consistent and there was no motive for them to implicate the appellant. He has also taken into consideration the plea made by the appellant that he refused to supply copy of the revenue record on the ground that no transaction was liable to be executed in the face of the fact that Mst. Sarnia Bibi wanted to sell 120 kanals out of her lot of 125 kanals and 6 mar/as in Rahimabad which was against MLR 115. It was only after taking all the facts of the case into consideration that the E. A. C., Sadiqabad, came to the positive conclusion that whatever may be the claims and counter claims of the parties in the said case, the fact stood established that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification of Rs, 400 from the complainant. While going through the judgment of the learned Commissioner we find that he has also attended to all the pleas raised by the appellant and vide his detailed judgment he came to the conclusion that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was unexceptionable.
7. In the light of the above discussions we are of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the A. C. Was fully in accordance with the law and no violation of any positive rules has been committed. The evidence on the record though discrepant on certain point, cannot be considered to suffer from any material discrepancy which would vitiate the entire proceedings. The main issue in this case was whether the appellant did refuse to give copy of revenue record which he was under obligation to do so and did he receive a sum of Rs, 400 as illegal gratification for the same. Both these issues have been positively established against the appellant. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the two impugned orders which are well considered and well-reasoned, and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit.
However there will be no order as to costs.