MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER). -Muhammad Bakhsh ex-Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwai, District Sargodha as the only respondent. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 3-4-1982 passed by the respon--dent whereby he was dismissed from service be set aside and he be re--instated into service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tehsildar Bhalwal sent a report to the respondent that the appellant while posted as Patwari in Circle Chak Miana had collected land revenue from the land owners of villages Bagri and Kot Kala pertaining to crops of Kharif 1980 and Rabi 1981, amounting to Rs. 3,811.94 without any authority or permission from the Collector and that he did not deposit the same in the Government Treasury and thus had criminally misappropriated the same. The respon- -dent deputed Sh. Abdur Rashid, Magistrate 1st Class, Bhalwal to hold an enquiry to ascertain as to how much land revenue was collected and mis--appropriated by the appellant. The Enquiry Officer after summoning the accused, recorded the statement of a number of witnesses. He submitted his report on 28-2-1982. He reported that the appellant had recovered a sum of Rs.
4,036.70 and Rs. 3.057.20 from the owners of Bagri against receipts for the crops of Kharif 1980 and Rabi 1981 respectively. It was also reported that during the enquiry proceedings, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 and an amount of Rs. 2093.88 was still outstanding from him. Thus, it was concluded that the appellant had mis-appropriated the Government dues to the tune of Rs.
2093.88. After receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent being the authority as well as the authoris--ed officer in respect of the appellant served him with a show-cause notice' whereby he was called upon as to why a major penalty -be not imposed upon him. He was also offered personal hearing if f he so wished for 24-3-1982. The appellant submitted his reply and was heard in person on 3-4-1982. He made a statement on 3-4-1982 and stated that he had de--posited a sum of Rs. 5,500 vide four Treasury Challans dated 30-12-1981, 30-12-1981, 6-2-1982 and 29-3-1982.
The respondent after going through the record of the case ... Was not satisfied with the defence of the appellant and he dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 3-4-1982. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Commissioner which 'was not decided despite the expiry of 90 days. Hence he filed the present appeal. However, it may be mentioned here, that during the arguments of the appeal, the learned District Attorney has placed on record a copy of the order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha dated 15-1-1983 whereby his appeal was rejected.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that he was not heard in person by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhawal, District Sargodha and that no regular enquiry was conducted against him. It has further been argued that the Lambardar of Village Bagri had died and in his absence the appellant collected the land revenue in the interest of the Government which he has also deposited. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted these arguments and has submitted that a Magistrate was deputed to conduct an enquiry against the appellant and he had issued him a notice to join the proceed--ings. The appellant was served with the notice and he was also associated in the proceedings on a number of occasions. Thus, no miscarriage of justice or any illegality has been conducted in the proceedings. He has also submitted that the authorised officer is fully competent to adopt a short procedure of show-cause notice in these circumstances when the appellant has also admitted the allegations against him.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. The record shows that Sheikh Abdur Rashid, Magistrate 1st Class was deputed to enquire into the allegations levelled against the appellant. He was served with a notice calling upon him to join the enquiry before him. He was personally served. However, the appellant did not appear in the Court despite per--sonal service. As such the Enquiry Officer, proceeded ex parte against him in accordance with the rules vide its order dated 16-12-1981. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of Shahu, Salaba, Muttali, Khizra, Sarishti and number of other persons. He also recorded the statements of seven persons on 17-12-1981. The appellant appeared before the learned Enquiry Officer in his Court Room on 24-12-1981. He made a statement in which he stated that he had examined the file and the receipts marked 'A' to `M' produced by the witnesses during their statements were issued by him show--ing the receipt of land revenue from the land owners.
He also stated that he was aware that according' to para. 3.20 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, the Patwari is not cdmpetent to collect the land revenue from the land owners and that he had collected the land revenue from the land owners unauthorisedly. Record shows that the appellant had submitted an application to the effect that he would render his account to the revenue Assistant on 24-12-1981. The contention of the appellant was not definite and he had also stated that he had not deposited any money in the Govern--ment Treasury as he had not received any amount. However, after his statement, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,500.02 as mentioned by us in the earlier part of our judgment. The record shows that even thereafter the appellant had been attending the enquiry. Thus, we hold that the appellant was associated in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and he had also examined the complete record before making his defence.
Thus we hold that the preliminary enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the rules and no prejudice had been caused to him by resorting to procedure of show-cause notice. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding personal hearing is concerned, we may observe that flier is no force in this contention. The appellant was offered a personal hearing by the Assistant Commissioner which was duly availed by him. The appellant had also submitted reply to the Assistant Commissioner on 29-3-1982 and his statement was also recorded by the -respondent on 3-4-1982 which was duly signed by him. Thus, we hold that the appellant was heard in person by the Assistant Commissioner and his plea to the contrary is not tenable. Regarding the merits of the case the record shows that in his statement made before the Enquiry Officer' and also the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant himself has admitted that he had collected the land revenue from the land owners without any authority and in contravention of the provision of rule 3.20 of the Punjab Land Record Manual. It is also proved from the record that the appellant collected the land revenue for the crops of Kharif 1980 and Rabi 1981 and deposited the first instalment of Rs. 1,279.15 on 30-12-1981 and. The last instalment of Rs. 500 on 29-3-1981. Thus, we can safely conclude that the appellant was guilty of temporary embezzlement of Rs. 7,093.90 for a number of months. The record shows that the appellant has not so far deposited the balance amount of Rs. 1,593.88 which is still outstanding against him. Even, the allegations of misappropriation, are also proved on record by the oral statements of the witnesses and the receipt executed and admitted by the appellant.
5. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to cost.