' Muhammad Hussain, ex-Girdawar of Adhi Kot, Noorpur Tehsil, District Khushab has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Kbushab as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order. Dated 17th May, 1984 of the Deputy Commissioner, Khushab and order, dated 13th August, 1984 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha be set aside as being illegal and against the facts of the case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer/Collector, Jauharabad in exercising the power conferred upon him under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 had authorised the Tehsildar Noorpur to eject the unauthorised occupants (Alam Sher, etc.) from the laud measuring 70 Acres and 3 Marlas in Chak No, 13-B/MB, Tehsil Noorpur, District Khushab and resume the possession thereof alongwith the standing crops and structure, etc., if any, standing thereon forthwith. The petitioners, however, could collect the compensation of acquired land from Khushab Treasury which was lying under head Revenue Deposit. This order was passed by the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer/Collector, Jauharabad on 17th January, 1983 and the compliance report alongwith a copy of Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati to the effect was to be sent within a week. The Tehsildar, Noorpur, forwarded this letter in original to Naib- Tehsildar for compliance and report vide his No, 70/Teh, dated 24th January, 1983. Naib-Tehsildar vide his No, 23/NT (i) dated 24th January, 1983 marked the same to Girdawar/Patwari with the direction to present the same at site{{URDU TEXT}} (6.4) on his next tour. But the above order of the E.A.C.O., Jauharabad was not implemented and the ejectment proceedings could not be carried out till 7th February, 1983, on which date Mr. Alam Sher etc., brought a stay order from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 6th February, 1983 and got it incorporated in the revenue record. The Board of Revenue inquired about the matter. The preliminary inquiries were conducted by Mehr Bashir Ahmad, E.A.C.O., Jauharabad and Mr. Zahir Khan M.I.C., Jauharabad. As a result of the preliminary enquiries the appellant was charge-sheeted for non-implementation of E.A.C.O's. Order. A charge sheet was served by the Authorised Officer (A. C. Noorpur) and Kb. Ejaz Ghani, M.I.C. Was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Authorised Officer who made his recommendations to the authority i,e,, D.C./Collector, Khushab. The appellant was afforded personal hearing by E.A.C.O. As authorised by the Deputy Commissioner but the appellant wanted that he should be heard by the Deputy Commissioner himself. The appellant was heard by the Deputy Commissioner, Khushab on 8th April, 1984 and 14th April, 1984. However, the appellant was found guilty and a punishment of reduction to the lower post of Patwari was imposed upon the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Khushab vide his order, dated 17th May, 1984. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was also rejected vide his order, dated 13th August, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i,e,, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant and A.G.
Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished arbitrarily unlawfully and without his fault. He has referred to the ejectment order, dated 17th January, 1983 of E.A.C.O., Jauharabad, wherein the Tehsildar, Noorpur was authorised to eject the unauthorised occupants within a week. The Tehsildar did not take any action within the desired time and after expiry of one week referred the matter to the Naib-Tehsildar on 24th January, 1983 who again marked this case to the appellant/Patwari on 24th January, 1983 for producing the same on his next tour at the site {{URDU TEXT}} (e_t_i). It has been stoutly resisted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not at all responsible for carrying out the ejectment proceedings. The Tehsildar and Naib-Tehsildar were required to conduct ejectment proceedings themselves and make relevant entries in the revenue record. The NaibTehsildar himself delayed the matter. Firstly he did not visit Adhikot on 29th January, 1983, according to his scheduled tour and later on he did not take prompt action to carry out the ejectment proceedings.
Furthermore, the concerned record alongwith the appellant/Patwari was available at Noorpur Tehsil Headquarters during the first week of February, 1983, but the Naib-Tehsildar did not take any action to complete the ejectment proceedings. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that on receipt of stay order from the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the decision from the Board of Revenue the preliminary enquiries were conducted by the respondents. This all was done to save the Tehsildar and Naib-Tehsildar who were negligent and lethargic for completion of the ejectment proceedings and the appellant has been made a scapegoat by the Enquiry Officers to cover the inefficiency on the part of the Tehsildar or Naib-Tehsildar. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that if a perusal is made of the two preliminary enquiry reports and the report of the regular Enquiry Officer, it is clear that these are contradictory. He has further submitted that if a reference is made to the regular enquiry report of Kh. Muhammad Ejaz Ghani, M.I.C., which has been made basis for punishing the appellant, is slipshod, against the facts of the case and has been concluded on surmises and conjectures. The Enquiry Officer has relied on the statements of the interested parties, which are also contradictory and thus the appellant was held guilty of inefficiency, ulterior motives arbitarily and the enquiry officer has failed to prove the same from the evidence brought forward before him. The enquiry report, being slipshod, cannot be made basis for punishing the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Khushab and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha are also not well-considered orders and full mind has not been applied by them while deciding the case of the appellant. Hence, the appellant has been punished arbitrarily, without proving his guilt.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents in extenso and has also submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer Kh. Ejaz Ghani, M.I.C. Has clearly held the appellant guilty of inefficiency and misconduct. Similarly the authority and the appellate authority has found the appellant guilty of inefficiency and misconduct. Thus, the appellant has been correctly and lawfully punished and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. I have perused the ejectment order issued by the E.A.C.O./Collector, Jauharabad No, 217-19, dated 17th January, 1983, wherein he authorised the Tehsildar, Noorpur to eject the unauthorised occupants and resume the possession from them alongwith the standing crops and structure forthwith. The Tehsildar, Noorpur, was directed to send a compliance report alongwith a copy of the Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati within a week. However, it is noteworthy that no action was taken by the Tehsildar for the compliance of ejectment proceedings within the stipulated period of one week and the Tehsildar marked the original papers to the Naib-Tehsildar on 24th January, 1983. Thus, the time limit of one week was allowed to elapse in the Tehsildar's Office without any proceedings whatsoever. On receipt of this order, the Naib- Tehsildar also did not comply with the order of E.A.C.O. And further marked the papers in routine to the Girdawar/ Patwari for placing before him on his next visit on the site{{URDU TEXT}} (6,..) vide his order, dated 24th January, 1983. This method of dealing with such important case, wherein an ejectment order was passed on the basis of writ petition dismissed by the honourable Lahore High Court, cannot be approved. Since the Tehsildar was asked by the relevant authority to complete the ejectment proceedings within a week, it was for the Tehsildar concerned to have immediately proceeded to the site {{URDU TEXT}}(e,..) to ensure that all the formalities are observed by the lower staff in his presence. He should not have left the matter to his subordinates in a casual and routine manner. Therefore, the main responsibility for non-compliance for ejectment rested with the Tehsildar and then with the Naib-Tehsildar who also failed to comply the order of his superior.
Accordingly Tehsildar and Naib-Tehsildar cannot be let off in this case as well. The appellant is also one of the delinquents. But he should have not been singled out for the purpose of punishment. As mentioned above if the Tehsildar/NaibTehsildar should have been vigilant and serious in complying with the order of the E.A.C.O./Collector, Jauharabad within the stipulated period there would have been no occasion for the lower staff to commit any irrigularity/inefficiency on their part. However, as the appellant has been found delinquent he cannot be exonerated as well. But, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I consider that the punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh and not in consonance with the guilt.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the punishment is modified/varied as follows :-
(a) The appellant is reinstated as Girdawar (Qanungo) from the date of his reversion.
(b) Censure.
(c) Stoppage of two annual increments without future effect.
' The appeal is accepted to the above extent and the impugned orders are modified accordingly, ' There will be no order as to costs.