' Muhammad Munir (ex-Revenue Patwari), Circle Dhariwala, Tehsil and District Gujranwala has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and the Collector/A .0 .E. , Gujranwala, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the A.C.E./Collector, dated 11-10-1982 and the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, dated 6- 3-1983, be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all benefits of salary and other emoluments in accordance with the departmental Service Rules with effect from 31-5-1977.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Well Drilling) Gujranwala, informed the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala that some Patwaris had made incorrect reports on the applications for grant of subsidy of the tube-wells. There was great variation with regard to the classification of the land verified by them and the one given in the revenue record. This was done with ulterior motives to give undue benefit to the applicants for grant of undue subsidy for installation of Tubewells. The Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, appointed the E.A.C.(R), Gujranwala, as an Inquiry Officer for the purpose. After enquiry, the E.A.C.(R) reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala on 3-1-1977, with the observations that the appellant had made wrong verification reports on the applications of Mst. Kaneez Fatima, Mahboob Khan, Abdul Aziz and Ali Muhammad etc. For ulterior motives. The Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, vide his order, dated 3-1-1977, suspended the appellant and six other Patwaris. It was further directed by him that they should be served with notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, for major penalty. On receipt of reply of the show-cause notice submitted by the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, was not satisfied with his explanation and dismissed him from service vide order, dated 31-5-1977. Against this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore which was rejected on 17-1-1972. The appellant then made appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was accepted vide order, dated 28-8-1982 and the case was remanded to the competent authority i,e, Assistant Commissioner/Collector concerned to proceed as per rules. It has been held in this order that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector was without jurisdiction, hence void. Since the original order of dismissal was void ab initio so all the subsequent orders emanated from it, would automatically fall to the ground. In view of the above directions of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, the appellant was re-instated in service with effect from 31-8- 1982, be he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The appellant was, therefore, served with a show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. He was heard in person on 23-9-1982, by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala.
The reply of the appellant was not found satisfactory. He was dismissed from service with immediate effect, vide impugned order, dated 11-10-1982 of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala which was dismissed vide his order, dated 6-3-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was re-instated as per judgment, dated 28-8-1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, and was again suspended by the respondent No,2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was proceeded under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by respondent No,2. No regular enquiry was held. He was also not afforded an opportunity to defend himself by producing evidence. Thus, he has been prejudiced in this matter and the impugned order, dated 11-10-1982, has been passed by respondent No,2, without proving the charges against the appellant. Thus, the impugned order, dated 11-10-1982 of the Assistant commissioner/ Collector Sadar Sub-Division, Gujranwala, is void ab initio and liable to be set aside on this score alone. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that his other colleagues i,e, Messrs Umer Hayat, Ashiq Hussain, Mehendi Hassan, Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Yousaf, all Patwaris, were also suspended and proceeded against on the similar and identical charges but were let off by awarding minor punishments by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala and they are still in service, but the appellant has been dismissed from service by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sadar Division, Gujranwala. Thus, the appellant, who had 19 years of excellent service at his credit, has been treated discriminatory and has been awarded extreme penalty of dismissal from service which is unjustified. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as explained by him, the order of the dismissal of the appellant is void ab initio and also he does not deserve the punishment which has been given to him by the respondents, keeping in view the similar and identical cases of other Patwaris who have been let off with minor punishment.
5. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and on the detailed impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala, dated 11-10-1982, and the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, dated 6-3-1983. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the charges prima facie stood proved against the appellant, sufficient material was available on the record for proceeding against the appellant under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, thus there was no necessity of holding a regular enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that it is a matter of fact that the incorrect reports were made by the appellant on the applications of the cultivators for grant of subsidy for the installation of the tube-wells which were contrary to the entries incorporated in the concerned revenue record. In view of this evidence available in the revenue record, the misconduct of the appellant stands proved and he has been punished correctly.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of the case very carefully. The perusal of the record, the details given in the impugned orders and parawise comments submitted by the respondents on this appeal, clearly prove without any doubt, that the appellant is guilty of misconduct, in making incorrect reports on the applications of Mst. Kaneez Fatima, Mehboob Khan, Abdul Aziz and Ali Muhammad etc. Which were contrary to the revenue record. Thus, the appellant is at fault.
7. However, I have consulted the files of Messrs timer Hayat, Ashiq Hussain, Mehendi Hassan, Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Yousaf and Shukarallah, Patwaris who were also proceeded against with the similar charges for making incorrect reports on the applications of the cultivators for subsidy grant of tube-wells. Messrs Umer Hayat, Mehendi Hassan, Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Yousaf, Patwaris were awarded minor penalty of censure vide orders, dated 1-2-1977 of Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Gujranwala. Ashiq Hussain, Patwari was awarded penalty of stoppage of one increment vide his order, dated 12-5-1977. The case of Shukarallah, Patwari, is distinguishable from the cases of the above Patwaris. Although he was proceeded against with the similar and identical charges as well, but his file shows that he had already been removed from service in another case and thus this enquiry did not warrant any action as is clear from the note on his file, dated 12-5-1977, recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala. The punishment to the appellant was awarded by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector sadar Sub-Division, Gujranwala, while to the other above-mentioned Patwaris by the higher authority i,e, Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala. Thus, I consider that the punishment given to the appellant is harsh discriminatory and unjustified.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the punishment of the appellant is directed to be modified/varied as follows:-
(a) Censure.
(b) Stoppage of increments for two years without future effect.
' The period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
' The appeal of the appellant is partially accepted. The impugned orders are set aside and modified/varied to the above extent only.
9. There will be no order as to costs. partly.