' S.ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Ghulam Mohammad, ex-Patwari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, dated 28-8-1982 whereby the appeal of the appellant challenging the legality and propietary of the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Controller Sub-Division Bhakkar dated 20-4-1982, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, has been rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha as well as the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bhakkar Sub-Division as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service with back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted at Halqa Dagar Lilian, tehsil Bhakkar, was served with a show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub-Division, Bhakkar in his capacity as Authorized Officer on the following charges.
(1) That while posted as Patwari of the said Halqa he had changed the Girdawari in favour of Noor Ahmad etc. (2) It was also alleged that he refused to hand over Roznamcha Partal for the year 1980 to his successor Patwari but misplaced the same in order to conceal his Farz-Kari. (3) It was also mentioned that he in connivance with the Girdawar Halqa changed the Khasra numbers, the total of which do not tally and thus his act of forgery stood proved. He filed reply to the said charges but the Assistant Commissioner,Bhakkar dismissed him from service. He challenged the order of dismissal before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, which was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has first of all assailed the impugned orders on legal ground by submitting that under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, three distinct and separate authorities for disciplinary proceedings have been mentioned i,e, Enquiry Officer, Authorised Officer and Authority. According to the learned counsel the Assistant Commissioner himself assumed the function of Authorised Officer as well as Authority simultaneously. A grievance was made that the Assistant Commissioner being Authority, could not assume himself the function of Authorised Officer whose powers were specifically provided in the Rules of 1975. In this case reliance was placed on Farooq Ahmad Malik v. Central Board of Revenue PLJ 1978 Service Tribunal 297, and it was argued that the appellant has been denied one right of agitating his grievance before the next higher authority by adoption of this illegal procedure. It has also been submitted that the Assistant Commissioner did not record any order with regard to his taking actior against the appellant under rule 6(3). Learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the validity of the procedure by saying that the same was done against the Rules and the procedure and in a most arbitrary manner.
6. With regard to the facts of the case learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this affair both the Girdawar as well appellant were fully implicated, therefore, a common enquiry should have been conducted against them by the authority which was competent to deal with the case of Girdawar because he was a senior in rank to the appellant. According to the learned counsel in this case a novel procedure has been adopted by handling the case of Girdawar independently while taking the case of the appellant separately altogether. This has resulted into the miscarriage of the Justice as the Girdawar has been let off with censure while the appellant has been dismissed from service. It has been vehemently pleaded while not conceding the guilt of the appellant, by the learned counsel for the appellant that the change of Khasra No,5 was always subjected to 100% check by the Girdawar, therefore, both were guilty of the same offence and punishment awarded should have been the same for both of them. In this way the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this was a case of high discrimination as well as against fundamental principles of justice.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that there was no force in the legal objection of the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that under the rules a competent authority can assume the power of Authorised Officer and act accordingly. However, he has conceded that as the offence had been committed jointly by the appellant as well as by the Girdawar therefore, case should have been jointly dealt with and the officer senior than the Authorised Officer should have proceeded with this case as the Girdawar was a senior person who was to be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner. With regard to the merits of the case, learned District Attorney has submitted that the guilt of the appellant as well as of the Girdawar stood fully proved from the fact that by virtue of earlier Girdawari M/s. Noor Ahmad etc. Were shown nowhere as cultivators and by changing the said Girdawri in their favour, a positive favour was done to them to improve their status as pre-emptor. Learned District Attorney has submitted that the case of 'Sehat kasht' was initiated by the other parties and the Collector allowed the Girdawari to be changed to its earlier position, but appeal is still pending before the Board of Revenue and the matter is still sub judice.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and without adverting to the merit of the case, as the nature of the subject-matter is still sub judice and we do not know what would be the decision of the higher authorities as to the act of the appellant as well as Girdawar with regard to their altering the Khasra Girdawari. What we are surprised in this case is that we do not find any justification for visiting the penalty of dismissal on the appellant while the Girdawar has been let of with a punishment of censure only. It is a matter of common knowledge for those who have some knowledge of the Land Record Manual/Administration Manual, that Girdawar is responsible for 100% partal of the Girdawari being senior person, official and thus no body can escape from his scrutiny, if the same is done according to the instructions so laid down in that behalf. In the present case, if the appellant had changed the position of the tenants arbitrarily and against the facts on the spot, the Girdawar would have easily caught the appellant and could have forced him to rectify the mistake and would have initiated proceedings against him but fact remains that said Girdawar instead endorsed the new change as correct. If ultimately it was found by the higher authorities, that the said act of the appellant which had complete blessing of the Girdawar was incorrect or collusive in nature, then the penalty visited upon them should have been identical. We have perused the order with regard to the Girdawar so made by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector and find no justification for him to impose a minor penalty of censure upon the Girdawar while visiting the appellant with major penalty of dismissal from service. In view of this high act of discrimination, we for the time being, bring both Girdawar as well as the appellant at par and give them the same treatment without allowing any discrimination in favour of any one of them.
9. However, the authorities after the decision of the Board of Revenue, can review the matter in that perspective but the same should be done according to the law laid down under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector as being highly discriminatory in nature being against fundamental principle of justice, by allowing Girdawar to be let off with censure and dismissing the appellant from service, who has got 23 years service at his credit.
10. We, therefore, accept the appeal set aside the impugned orders and visit the appellant with a minor penalty of Censure so as to treat him at par with the Girdawar who was also found equally guilty by the authorities alongwith appellant. There will be no order as to costs.