Briefly, facts of the case are that on receipt of reference from Collector (Consolidation)
Muzaffargarh Bearing No, 1039/Collector (Cons.) dated 15.3.2012, the authority vide order dated 29.12.2013 appointed Additional District Collector, Layyah as inquiry officer in terms of Section 5 read with. Section 9 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against delinquent officials of Tehsil Chaubara, District Layyah, appellant Ex-Kanungo, Muhammad Sharif Ex-Patwari, Syed Fida Hussain Shah Ex-Consolidation Officer and Ahmad Hussain Ex-Incharge Consolidation Officer.
2. Accordingly, through a single charge sheet dated 29.10.2013 the delinquent officers/officials were charged separately, the competent authority appointed Additional District Collector, Layyah as inquiry officer to proceed against them on the charge of inefficiency and misconduct.
Appellant was served/charge sheeted as follows:--
1. That inheritance Mutation No, 16150 of Mauza Nawan Kot Tehsil Chaubara, was entered by Muhammad Sharif Patwari (Consolidation) on 19.06.2009 on the basis of fake Mutation No, 997 dated 22.9.2007 Tehsil Shakargarh. Subsequently Muhammad Iqbal Kanungo (Consolidation) wrote on the Part Patwar on 31.07.2009 that the mutation is incomplete. Previous Mutation No, 997 of Tehsil Shakargarh should be got verified in first instance but inspite of this he verified Mutation No, 16150 on 22.7.2010. Consequently, after his verification Fida Hussain CO. Chaubara Attested/decided the said mutation on 25.8.2010.
2. From the above it reveals that inspite of the report of Muhammad Iqbal Kanungo (Consolidation), he did not bother to get the Mutation No, 997 verified from the concerned agency and with his mala fide intention Mutation No,. 16150 was passed by Fida Hussain Consolidation Officer Chaubara relying upon his report dated 22.07.2010.
3. That the said forged inheritance mutation was shown as registered/attested with reference to previous another forged inheritance Mutation No, 997 dated 22.9.2007 Mauza Dodu Chak Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal as per written report dated 19.4.2011 sent by Tehsildar Shakargarh in the light of the report prepared by the local patwari Mauza Dudho Chak as conveyed to the Collector (Consolidation) Muzaffargarh/Layyah.
Mutation No, 997 dated 22.09.2007 was fraud and fake.
4. That he benefited (under the said forged inheritance Mutation No, 16150) some private persons i,e, Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Fareed, Khan Muhammad in connivance with the field staff 5 .That he misused his status and official powers by attesting the said forged mutation in connivance with the fraudulent beneficiaries. That he benefited some private persons and damaged the legal rights of the . genuine land owners.
6. That he did not fulfill his legal responsibility by thrashing out all the concerned record thoroughly.
Reply to the charge sheet was filed dated 19.11.2013 wherein appellant refuted the charges.
Thereafter, a detailed inquiry was conducted in which inquiry officer held that appellant Kanungo (Consolidation) in connivance with Muhammad Sharif Patwari was found involved in transferring huge land measuring 228-K Mouza Nawan Kot, Tehsil Chaubara, District Layyah, in reference to another forged inheritance Mutation No, 997 of Mouza Dudho Chak, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal dated 22.9.2007 the land was part of a joint Khata. The land , was mutated/entered through inheritance Mutation No, 16150 dated 19.6.2009 by Muhammad Sharif Patwari.
It was observed in inquiry that the land was "LAWARIS" as whereabouts/antecedents of claimant allottee Baggu son of Chandru were not traceable, therefore entry of the owner thus could not be recorded in the relevant revenue register/Khasra Girdawari Kishtwari at the time of entering names of owners of land during consolidation.
Inquiry officer observed that though Muhammad Sharif Patwari was transferred on 5.5.2010 and Mutation No, 16150 dated 19.06.2009 was 'not approved till assumption of charge by new incumbent Slier Zaman, Patwari. Appellant, signed/verified the said mutation on 22.7.2010 which after his verification was subsequently sanctioned/decided on 25.8.2010 by Syed Fida Hussain Consolidation Officer. It was also observed by the inquiry officer though fake/forged inheritance mutation was entered prior to the, assumption of charge by the appellant but he did not took proper care which was required of him to examine the record thoroughly before verifying the said mutation being inefficient and negligent in his. duties.
The inquiry officer recommended removal from service upon appellant and co-accused Muhammad Sharif Patwari while recommending minor penalties of with-holding of promotion for one year and Censure to Syed Fida Hussain Shah Consolidation Officer and Ahmad Hussain Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer respectively.
The competent authority issued show-cause-cum-personal hearing notice dated 3.3.2014 under Section 13(4) of the Act ibid. Appellant appeared, reiterated his earlier stance which was considered and found not plausible. The competent authority vide order dated 8.4.2014 imposed major penalty of Removal from Service upon appellant and co-accused Muhammad Sharif Patwari u/S. 4(1)(b)(v) of the Act ibid and also imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement upon Syed Fida Hussain Shah, Consolidation Officer and minor penalty of Censure against Ahmad Hussain Incharge Consolidation Officer. The order was assailed in appeal before the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore/Appellate Authority (Respondent No, 2) who vide order dated 29.9.2014 in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Act ibid rejected the same.
Hence this service appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended in respect of Charge No, 1 that inheritance Mutation No, 16150 was recorded/ entered on 19.6.2009 by Patwari and sanctioned by Ahmad Hussain former Revenue Officer/Consolidation Officer, the mutation in question by that time was complete in all respect. Appellant long thereafter, on transfer assumed charge as Kanungo in July, 2010. That mutation remained pending only due to non-payment of Government dues. It was further contended that due to the afore-referred order, appellant after comparison with Haqdar consolidation verified inheritance mutation on 22.7.2010 without any ulterior motive, thereafter Syed Fida Hussain Shah Consolidation Officer sanctioned mutation after considering relevant facts and record inclusive of order of Ahmad Hussain. Further argued that on 22.7.2010 when appellant verified mutation no Note by Muhammad Iqbal former Kanungo for verification of Mutation No, 997 existed on Part Sarkar of Mutation No, 16150. That non-existence of Note on Part Sarkar establishes that Note was subsequently recorded by Muhammad Sharif Patwari by tempering record, therefore, acting in good faith appellant verified inheritance Mutation No, 16150 in view of its entry dated 19.6.2009, sale Mutation No, 16151 was thus a consequential act.
That Charge No, 2 regarding Mutation No, 16150 is not attracted as the mutation was pending for want of payment of Government dues.
Regarding Charge No, 3 it was, observed that appellant remained unaware of Mutation No, 997.
Regarding Charge No, 4 it was denied that appellant did not give benefit to any private person.
Regarding Charge No, 5 it was asserted that in view of the circumstances explained above no malafide can be attributed against appellant.
Regarding Charge No,. 6 it was asserted that duty of the appellant as Kanungo was to complete the pending mutation after necessary verification and by verifying Mutation No, 16150, he performed his duty in accordance with law. That entry in Column No, 12 of inheritance; Mutation No, 16150 was entered by Muhammad Sharif Patwari who referred to Mutation No, 997 by specifying pedigree of transferee. It was not incumbent upon appellant to verify the entry already recorded in Column No, 12 dated 19.06.2009 as the same fell within the purview of Revenue Officer/Consolidation Officer, moreover there was no mentioning of verifying Mutation No, 997 in the order dated 19.6.2009 of Ahmad Hussain former Revenue Officer.
That statements of witnesses of Malik Muhammad Sami Collector Consolidation, Talib Hussain Peshi Kanungo, office of Collector Consolidation, Saeed Ahmad Khan Bills Clerk and Azhar Hussain Assistant Bills Clerk were not recorded in the presence of the appellant and he remained bereft of opportunity to cross-examine them. The said PWs in their depositions did not give any incriminating statement whatsoever against appellant. That charges against all co-accused were different but inquiry officer did not record charge-wise findings in respect of each accused separately. Findings recorded are confused and in a rigmarole manner. It was also emphasized that findings by inquiry officer against appellant's acts of omission and commission were/are to the extent of inefficiency only, therefore, the penalty of removal from Service recommended by inquiry officer contradicts his own findings which without judicious application of mind were upheld by the competent as well as appellate authorities. The punishment awarded is harsh keeping in view the findings of the inquiry officer.
3. Learned District Attorney argued that appellant in connivance with Muhammad Sharif, Patwari, Revenue Officers and private persons Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Farid and Khan Muhammad in order to benefit the said persons, without thoroughly examining the record and verification of fake Mutation No, 997 of Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal, verified inheritance Mutation No, 16150 and sale Mutation No, 16151, Mouza Nawan Kot, Tehsil Choubara, District Layyah dated 19.6.2009 which led to there sanctioning/attestation on 25.8.2010 by Syed Fida Hussain Shah, Revenue Officer/Tehsildar. The role played by appellant was glaring. He does not deserve leniency. The punishment was awarded by the competent and appellate authority after thorough examination of record and are in accordance with law.
4. Examination of the record reveals that land in dispute measuring 228-K situated in Mauza Nawan Kot, Tehsil Chaubara, District Layyah was entered in mutation in the name of Baggu son of Chandru as Shamlat Deh, the area was under consolidation. The name of Baggu claimant allotee could not be entered in register Girdawari Kishtwari, because neither Baggu nor any of heirs ever turned up for its possession/Wand meaning thereby that status of land was that of "LAWARIS".
Muhammad Sharif, Patwari being fully aware in connivance with private persons Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Farid etc. by declaring Baggu as deceased entered fake inheritance Mutation No, 16150 on 19.6.2009 in favour of Abdul Ghafoor thereby producing a bogus claimant by inheritance.
Abdul Ghafoor was shown as grandson of Baggu alleged deceased being his only surviving legal heir, the forged/fake mutation was witnessed by Ghulam Farid and Khan Muhammad. Baggu in the relevant column was shown to have expired 17 years earlier and it was mutated in reference to another forged inheritance Mutation No, 997 of Mouza Dhudo Chak, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal dated 22.9.2007 without getting the later mutation verified.
Subsequently, on the basis of inheritance Mutatidn No, 16150 another forged Mutation No, 16151 for sale was also entered on the same day i,e, 19.6.2009 by Muhammad Sharif, Patwari wherein Abdul Ghafoor son of Kalu Khan (bogus claimant/inheritor) sold the land to Ghulam Farid (Pattidar) and another (vendees), one of the vendee Ghulam Farid interestingly was also a witness in the fake inheritance mutation entered in favour of seller Abdul Ghafoor. Both mutations without comparison of Girdawar Halqa were presented on' 19.6.2009 before Ahmad Hussain Khan, Tehsildar holding the additional charge of Consolidation Officer, Chaubara, who through an interim order dated 19.6.2009 wrote that after payment of Government dues and comparison 'by Girdawar, mutations be presented on his next tour. Further Ahmad Hussain Khan also wrote a letter Bearing No, 139 dated 19.6.2009 to Muhammad Sharif, Patwari for verification of inheritance Mutation No, 997 dated 22.9.2007, Mouza Dhudo Chak Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal. Muhammad Sharif, Patwari denied receipt of any such letter but the same was confirmed by Muhammad Sharif and Raheem Bakhsh, Reader and Naib Qasid respectively of Tehsildar who while appearing as Witnesses before the inquiry officer affirmed delivery of letter through dispatch register.
Prosecution also produced five other witnesses besides the two afore-referred.
Muhammad Iqbal, Kanungo Halqa also sought verification of Mutation No, 997 of Tehsil Shakargarh and wrote a note with regard thereto on Part Patwar but no such note was found written on Part Sarkar the contents thus remained dubious.
Muhammad Sharif, Patwari was transferred on 5.5.2010 from Incharge Patwari to Patwari Imdadi in same Mouza and was replaced by Sher Zaman, Patwari. Although mutations in question were entered on 19.6.2009 but Muhammad Sharif Patwari during his long stirt after entering Mutation No, 16150 never presented them before Ahmad Hussain }than during his tours after he put up a Note for verification.
Later Ahmad Hussain Khan was transferred and in his place was posted Syed Fida Hussain Shah as Officer Consolidation. Though Muhammad Sharif, Patwari was transferred on 5.5.2010 and mutations in question being no more his assignment but his sinister motive/malafide intention is evident from the fact he got comparison of mutations on 22.7.2010 from Muzaffar Hussain, Girdawar. Later sanction/attestation of forged/ fake inheritance Mutation No, 16150 was got approved by Muhammad Sharif, Patwari on 25.8.2010 from Syed Fida Hussain Shah, Officer Consolidation. Syed Fida Hussain Shah and Muzaffar Hussain being accomplices were responsible being in supervisory capacity should have taken due care, both officials failed to discharge their duties.
It is pertinent that Muhammad Sharif, Patwari's role was pivotal being a mastermind.
Muhammad Sharif, Patwari because of the Note afore-referred and with malafide intention kept its verification pending till transfer of Ahmad Hussain. Appellant verified the said mutations on 22.7.2010 without thoroughly sifting/examining the record which he was bound before its verification. It was his duty being in a supervisory capacity to perform his duty diligently. The inquiry officer in his report recommended imposition of major penalty but perusal of the inquiry report and its conclusion reveal that role of appellant was referred to being negligent and inefficient. The inquiry officer laid entire thrust of mischief on Muhammad Sharif, Patwari, thus no connivance of appellant with private persons can be attributed.
The charges attributed/framed against appellant also reflect primary role of Muhammad Sharif, Patwari.
The contention that appellant as Kanungo, Halqa verified Mutation Nos, 16150 &. 16151 after necessary verification is not tenable because he failed to take due care and caution.
The prosecution witnesses too did not directly attribute incriminating statement against the appellant nor is any material on record available connecting appellant with the heinousness of charges.
The punishment of removal from service awarded to the appellant is too harsh and does not commensurate with the gravity of charges leveled in the light of the inquiry report, statement of witnesses and role of Muhammad Sharif, Patwari co-accused.
6. I am of the considered view that undeniably appellant cannot be exonerated of the role played by him in Chain with other co-accused, therefore, appeal is partly allowed, the punishment of Removal from Service is converted into forfeiture of past service for the period of two years while modifying the impugned orders dated 8.4.2014 &. 29.9.2014. Appellant is reinstated into service, the intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due.