Muhammad Nawaz formerly Patwari has filed this appeal under sec--tion 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 26-10-1981 passed by the learned Commissioner, Multan, whereby he rejected the appeal of the appellant filed by him against the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 19-2-1981, dismissing him from service.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be restored in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while serving as Patwari Consolidation Mauza Noraja Bhutta, Tehsil Shujabad District Multan, was served with a charge-sheet on 24-2-1979, in which it was stated that he was responsible for the damage of record which he produced on 24-3- 1975, before the Board of Revenue but at the same time did not deposit the same in the Tehsil. This charge-sheet further stated that after various reminders he returned the record on 5-11-1979, and that too, to the extent of 12 volumes of Register Scheme and five volumes of Register Haqdaran which were damaged by white ants. The appellant replied to the charge-sheet to Tehsildar/Enquiry Officer, who found him guilty and was thus dismissed from service by the learned Assistant Commissioner. The appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1 but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been argued that the Enquiry Officer out of three witnesses, have examined only two and did not allow the appellant to cross- examine them. The third witness A.C.O. Was not examined despite the request of the appellant and no orders whatsoever for giving up the said witnesses were passed. That the findings of the Enquiry officer as well as in the impugned orders were against the record of this case and the appellant has been condemned in routine without looking into reply of the appellant which fully established that he was not at fault. However, in the end it has been submitted that the major penalty so imposed was out of proportion with the offence, even if it was found that the appellant had committed some negligence in not keeping the record safely.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that whatever may be the position, the appellant cannot escape from the liability that he was negligent in handling the record of this important nature, therefore, the penalty of dismissal so imposed upon him at the discretion of the Assistant Commissioner/competent authority cannot be called excessive.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments so advanced before me and have taken pains to go into the record of this case, as well as to examine the statement and explanation of the appellant so submitted by him before the Assistant Commissioner and find that the following record was requisitioned by the Board of Revenue in revision petition pending before it :----- The said record was produced by the appellant in the Court of Board of Revenue four times on different dates and when it was no longer required it was reconsigned by the appellant on 8-1- 1976. I have verified this fact and find that Munshi Rab Nawaz, Naib-Patwari has received the said record and has issued a receipt in token of the same. I also do not find that there was any mention by said Rab Nawaz or any body else that the record so received was in damaged condition. The report of the Field Kanungo which declared the record eaten up by white-ants is subse--quent to the report of Rab Nawaz, Naib-Patwari employed in his office.
7. The appellant was again required to produce before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) the following record in appeal Rahim Bakhsh v. Sardar Bibi etc. Which was heard on 14-3-1977 ;----
1. Field Book 1967-68 3 volumes
2. Register, Scheme 14 volumes
3. Khatooni Ishtimal 3 volumes
4. Pehrist Numbran Khasra 1 volume
5. Register Haqdaran Zamin 5 volumes
6. Naqal Ishtimal One Hathi
7. Masavi Hai Qisht War and Killa Bandi It is interesting to note that the aforesaid record was also taken out of the some Basta of consolidation rec6rd pertaining to the village Noraja Bhutta, but no body pointed out from the Kanungo office that this. Record was in damaged condition or moth eaten. I have also satisfied myself that the record which was previously obtained on 28-3-1975 and consigned on 8-1-1976, by the appellant was different than the record which was drawn on 14-3-1977. This very fact goes to the very root of the case in favour of the appellant. With regard to this document the appellant cannot be held guilty for the damage caused to the said record which was found subsequently in damaged condition. While going through the pro--ceedings of this case and the grounds of the appeal before the learned Commissioner, we find that two months after the dismissal of the appel- -lant, the Office Kanungo on 14-5-1981, gave 10 volumes of Register Scheme to Munshi Mehtab Din Patwari Halqa Raja Ram in perfect condition for producing the same before the Board of Revenue in case Rahim Bakhsh v. Mst. Fatima. This Patwari was got summoned before the Board of Revenue, who brought the said 10 volumes of the scheme and produced the same before the Member, B.O.R.
For examination. These documents were found to be in perfect condition but this fact has been ignored by the learned Commissioner in his judgment, which is also impugned before us. The appellant has also appended with the appeal documents A. 1 to A. 12 to show that these copies were obtained from the contents of the said record which has been declared by the authorities as moth eaten. In this way the appellant's counsel pursuaded me to believe that the condition of the record was not so bad that it could not be used any further for the purpose of Revenue administration. I have carefully gone through the impugned orders as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer to find the culpability of the appellant and to what extent. The order of the Assistant Commis--sioner is very short order which cannot be termed as a speaking order as it only says that the appellant has failed to give cogent reason explanation for the destruction of the Revenue record. He has further said. As he has been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer he deserves no leniency and is dismissed from service. Learned Commissioner in his judgment has only observed that he has heard the appellant and is not satisfied with the expla--nation and find that the official record was kept by the appellant for a period of 31 years and he was responsible for the destruction of the same. Now what I am left with is the only inquiry report, as to find, how far the appel--lant was negligent vis-a-vis the charge so framed against him. This Inquiry Report is also very short one and holds the appellant guilty on the admission of the appellant himself that he received the record in good condition and that he has candidly admitted that although he was appointed in Mauza Jarabeen but the record was placed in Jalalpur Pirwala. He has also referred inability of the appellant according to own admission for not looking after the records as the floods of 1976 did not allow him for 3-4 months to reach his house which was surrounded all along by the flood water.
8. What I find in this case is that at the most appellant can be held responsible on his own admission a fact which the appellant cannot deny before me also that the record was kept for certain period at his house at Jalalpur Pirwala where he was residing and not at the village of his posting. This is only lapse, which stands proved and that too, on the admission of the appellant himself, otherwise both the orders of Assistant Commissioner as well as learned Commissioner do not discuss the merits and demerits of the case, which should have been discussed in order to controvert the detailed explanation submitted by the appellant in reply to the charge--sheet as well taken in the grounds of appeal so filed before the learned Commissioner.
9. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty of dismissal is out of proportion with the act of negligence com--mitted by the appellant, therefore, I vary the sentence by setting aside the order of dismissal by imposing upon him minor penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. The appellant will not be entitled to pay and allowances for the date of his dismissal to the date of re-instatement and this period will be treated as leave without pay. The appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs.
1. Field Book 3 volumes
2. Register SchemeOne volume
3. Numbraii Kbasra3 volumes
4. Khatoni Ishtiamal3 volumes
5. Misal Ishtimal One bundle