Rehmat Ali, ex-Patwari has made this appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha whereby the order of the A. C./Collector, Saddar Sub- Division, Faisalabad dated 5-10-1981 was confirmed and the appellant was dismissed from service.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that both these impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be re-instated into service.
3. Brief history of the case is fat Rehmat Ali, ex-Patwari while posted in Chak No. 53/JB entered a sale mutation No. 609 on 12-2-1979, which was verified by the Kanungo and attested by the Revenue Officer on 18-2-1979. In column No. 12 of the relevant mutation sheet the appellant had indicated that the mutation in question had been entered on the basis of a sale deed registered vide No. 1838 dated 12-1-1979 Later on it was found, that no such sale deed had ever been executed or registered by the parties concerned in respect of the said sale transaction. A. C./Collector, Faisalabad in his judgment dated 31-8-1981, In re : Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad Shafi etc. Has mentioned that the mutation No. 609 of Chak No. 53/JB was sanctioned on 18-2-1979 by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1lnd grade, Faisalabad which was entered on the basis of a sale-deed registered vide No, 1838 dated 12-1-1979. It had been contended that the said registered deed had absolutely no connection with the transaction which had been entered through the said mutation.
The sale deed registered at Sr. No. 1838 on 23-1-1979 was perused by the A. C./Collector, Faisalabad and he observed as follows :-- "The parties mentioned in the said deed are different from the parties mentioned in the mutation. It seems that the Patwari with the connivance of the Revenue Officer has committed some fraud in this case. The impugned order is absolutely baseless and is hereby set aside. A show-cause notice will be given to the Patwari concerned under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discip--line) Rules, 1975 for major penalty in connection with this case. The responsibility of the Kanungo and Revenue Officer will be fixed after a detailed report is obtained from the Tehsildar on this subject. "
The appellant was served with a show-cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant. A. C./Collector, Faisalabad found the appellant guilty of corruption and gross misconduct and was dismissed from service vide his order dated 5-10-1981. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected, announced on 30-1-1982, conveyed to the appellant on 21-2-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the mutation was entered on the basis of a sale-deed registered vide No. 1838 dated 12-1-1979 which was produced before the appellant and thus the appellant entered the sale mutation No. 609 on 12-2-1979 correctly. The sale-deed produced before the appellant was properly stamped which was checked and verified later on by his immediate officers i. e. Kanungo and Revenue Officer. Thus the charges of forgery and fraud against the appellant are false and not sustainable. In a corruption charge, the regular enquiry has to be conducted so that the appellant could be provided opportunities to defend himself. But in this particular case, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice under rule (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 and no regular enquiry was held. The appellant has been condemned without affording him oppor--tunities to defend himself. Moreover the A. C./Collector, Faisalabad on the appeal of Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad Shafi etc. Held Kanungo and Revenue Officer responsible as well along with the appellant but they have not been proceeded against and no responsibility has been fixed on them. The counsel of the appellant further submitted that if the appellant would have been given a chance to defend himself through a regular enquiry, he would have proved by producing the witnessess, that he was not at fault for the charge levelled against him. The appellant's counsel further submitted that it is not understood as to why the learned A. C./Collector, Faisalabad did not register a criminal case against the alleged vendees i.e. Muhammad Shafi and six others while accepting the appeal of Muhammad Yousaf vide his judgment dated 31-8-1981. The counsel concluded that on these arguments, the appellant cannot be held responsible for this charge and the impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by submitting that the mutation in question was entered on the basis of a non-existent sale-deed which was neither executed nor produced before the appellant and other revenue official /officers and that the mutation is fictitious. Thus it is proved beyond doubts that the appellant had committed a fraud in this case.
5. I have given may anxious thought to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have also perused the record. The A. C,/Collector, Faisalabad through his impugned order dated 5-10-1981 has held the appellant guilty of corruption and gross misconduct. We have already held in our earlier judgments that when a person is proceeded against on a charge of corruption the dispensing of regular enquiry in these circumstances Would be unjustified and resort--ing to the procedure of show-cause notice would be an arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in the competent authority under rule 6 (3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. In this behalf the reliance is placed upon Mubark Ahmad Malik and 4 others v. Federation of Pakistan (1980PLC(C.S.)418). Dost Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner, Multan (1980PLC(C.S.)611) and Muhammad Anwar v. Board of Revenue and others (1980 PLC (C. S.) 562). Thus I agree with the learned counsel of the appellant that the appellant has not been given opportunities to defend himself, in view of the earlier judgments of this Tribunal.
Through his judgment announced on 31-8-1981, in case of Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad Shafi etc., the A. C./Collector, Faisalabad has held that he has perused the copy of the sale-deed registered at S. No. 1838 on 23-1-1979. The parties mentioned in the sale-deed are different from the parties mentioned in the mutation. It is worth mentioning that the sale-deed registered mentioned in mutation is dated 12-I-1979 and not dated 23-1-1979. Thus though the register number is same but the dates are different, thus it was more appropriate that the enquiry would have been held, the matter being doubtful. Furthermore through this very judgment A. C./Collector, Faisalabad had held the Kanungo and Revenue Officer also responsible in this case alongwith the appellant Thus to meet the ends of the justice the enquiry should have been conducted against all these three officials/ officer as well. No doubt the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha in his impugned order announced on 31-1-1982 did not hold the Kanungo and Revenue Officer responsible ; but in his judgment he has not given any concrete and solid argument for absolving Kanungo and Revenue Officer from their responsibilities and has also not kept in view duties assigned to them in the Punjab Land Records Manual and section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 regarding mutations. He has also not based his judgment on the findings of any enquiry.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view I hold that a regular enquiry should have been held against the appellant to provide him opportunities to defend himself. The Kanungo and Revenue Officer should have also been proceeded along with the appellant as they were also held responsible by the A. C./Collector, Faisalabad through his judgment dated 31-8-1981 in case of Muhammad Yousuf v. Muhammad Shafi etc. And were also parties to the attestation of the mutation in dispute. The result is that the impugned orders are declared illegal and are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. It is directed that the appellant be reinstated in service to bestow upon him the status of civil servant ; to proceed against him but the period from the date of his dismissal to that, of re-instatement will be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
There will be no orders as to costs.