' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Munshi Muhammad Akram, Ex-Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order passed by the learned Collector dated 23rd April, 1981 and the Commissioner dated 23rd May, 1981, whereby he is dismissed from service.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he may be re- instated in service. This appeal has come before us at the preliminary stage wherein parawise comments from the department have also been received and rejoinder to the same has also been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. As we have got sufficient material before us to assess the value of the arguments of the parties, therefore, we will proceed to dispose it of at this preliminary stage.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted during 1977-78 as Halqa Patwari of Mouza Heir, Tehsil and District Lahore. Certain irregularities of fraudulent nature were noticed during his tenure and his conduct became the subject of enquiry and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khokhar, Naib-Tehsildar was appointed as an enquiry officer. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and he was summoned on 8th April, 1981, for personal hearing but he did not turn up. He was again summoned for 15th April, 1981, but he again failed to appear and the case was adjourned for 23rd April, 1981. However, he appeared on 23rd April, 1981 and was heard in person.
After hearing him personally and perusing the record of the case the A. C. Found him guilty and dismissed him from service with immediate effect. He filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner Mr. Umar Khan Afridi who found that the appellant was given ample opportunity to defend himself and as the charges stood fully proved against him he dismissed his appeal in limine. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have perused the parawise comments so filed by the Department along with impugned orders dated 23rd April, 1981, by the AC/Collector Lahore and that of dated 23rd May, 1981, passed by Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore as well as the record of this case carefully. It is apparent from the record and the enquiry made into the conduct of the appellant that he helped one to get fraudulent allotment of evacuee land in village on the basis of forged Mukhbari decisions in the names of Ghulam Qadir and others and got 70 kanals of land out of the fraudulent allotment as his share in village Thether in the name of his wife. It is further found that in the sale deed of 17th December, 1977, executed in the name of appellant's wife, the sale price was indicated as Rs, 10,000 and Only after about a year the same land was further sold to one Mian Inam llahi for Rs, one lac. This act by itself is violation of the Government Servants Conduct Rules which lays down that our Government servant can purchase or sell any property within his jurisdiction, in the name of dependent without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority. It is also on the record that the appellant did not declare the said property through annual declaration etc. We have probed further into the record to see the past conduct of the appellant which would always be relevant in cases where further charges are made or controverted. We produce the same verbatim in order to show what has been said about him by his superiors: 1973. Worst of the whole lot. Enjoys very bad reputation, 1974. Absolutely not fit for service. Highly corrupt, Most unreli. Able and incorrigible.
1976. His work has been just average. A case has been registered against him for criminal misappropriation of Rs, 4,875 representing the cost of fertilizer. He is under trial now a days. He has since been repatriated to Mahal Wing.
1977. Had the reputation of mutelatury. In order to get posted at this circle he exerted political influences and appeared as if he had buried a treasure there. Not a good patwari.
5. It is interesting to note further that Muhammad Zafar was neither a claimant nor attorney of the appellant Ghulam Qadir whereas he was party to the fraud committed by the appellant. Ghulam Qadir in fact was kept in dark and no execution was made between him and the wife of the appellant.
6. As regards to the legal objections it would be sufficient to say that Muhammad Anwar Khokhar, Naib-Tehsildar was not a regular Enquiry Officer who made a probe into the matter to satisfy the competent authority as to the charges looked into by him. The show-cause notice was issued by the authority under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 which the authority could do under the law when he was fully satisfied that the documentary evidence against the appellant fully implicated him in the case. The Commissioner Lahore Division also dismissed his appeal after examining the record of the case, and the personal file of the appellant after having heard him at length. Under these circumstances we do not feel that the appellant was not given opportunity to defend himself for that he has been condemned unheard.
7. In the light of our above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the appeal merits dismissal at this preliminary stage. Therefore, we proceed to dismiss this appeal in limine