' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN).-- Muhammad Saeed, ex Patwari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub-Division, Chiniot, District Jhang, Mr. Akhtar All Monga, Assistant Commissioner/Collector Chiniot Sub-Division, Chiniot, Mr. Javed Mahmood, Assistant Commissioner/Collector Chiniot Sub-Division, Chiniot and Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 29-6-1982, passed by A.C., Collector, Chiniot and order, dated 10-4-1983, passed by Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, be set aside and he be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Hussain resident of Mohallah Sabzi Mandi Chiniot, district Jhang, on 15-6-1978, made a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang against the appellant, which was sent to the Assistant Commissioner for holding preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry held against the appellant and he was charge-sheeted for various allegations. The enquiry was entrusted to Resident Magistrate, Chiniot, who vide his report, dated 24-2-1981 after hearing the appellant and witnesses reported that all the charges levelled against the appellant stood proved. After receiving the Inquiry Report, the Assistant Commissioner vide his order, dated 29-6-1982, found the appellant guilty of misconduct and retired him from Government service compulsorily. He filed representation/appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad, who after going through the record and hearing the appellant, did not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the respondents Nos,3 and 4 are patently bad in the eye of law. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer vide his report, dated 18-1-1979 but the same was not considered adequate and a further inquiry was ordered into the said affair. It has been vehemently argued that the order, dated 25-3-1979, whereby Ch. Nazeer Ahmad, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer is completely silent as on which material the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order. A great stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entries made in the revenue record stood already incorporated in the same and the appellant has nothing to do with the said entries. He has tried to justify his action throwing the blame on his predecessor and pleaded that the appellant was absolutely innocent.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments filed by the respondents and has submitted that both the impugned orders were correctly passed and has stoutly resisted to be maintained as such.
7. We have given our anxious thought to arguments advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the judgment, dated 15-5-1975, passed by the Collector, which has been relied upon by both the parties in their favour. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang who decided this case on 15-5-1975, visited the spot and found that Khasra Nos, 2793 and 2807, were never interpolated and in fact the entries made by the appellant were upheld as being correct.
8. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the stand of the appellant is absolutely unfounded as concluding paragraph of the judgment at page 3 of the judgment and page 40 of the file is as under:- "Under the circumstances narrated above, I am of the opinion that the respondents have been cultivating Khasra Nos, 2793 and 2807 , since long as tenants-at-will. The entry of {{URDU TEXT}} is absolutely wrong and would be deleted forth with by inserting the entries of {{URDU TEXT}} According to this verdict it was fully established that the entries made by the appellant{{URDU TEXT}} g,-4,,epv161): was uncalled for and was only made to destroy the right of respondents (now complainant in this case), who was actually cultivating the same as tenant at-will."
' This being so we have no hesitation to hold that the charge No,1 stood fully proved against the appellant that he in connivance with Qasab community showed these numbers as part of the graveyard whereas the same belonged to Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Hussain. We have also found that the appellant did enter Mutation No, 4931, where he gave a note to the effect that the vendor was selling his total land there was no violation of M.L.R.
115. After going through this entry it is also on the record that he made a report for the review of the said mutation as an area of nine marlas was then still existing in the name of the vendor, which was a clear violation of M.L.R.
115. These two contradictory reports speak volume in favour of appellant's guilt and thus the appellant has correctly been connected with this charge. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a grievance that the learned Commissioner while hearing his appeal, did not consider an important aspect that in fact such entries were wrongly recorded by his predecessor and the appellant had nothing to do with the same. We have perused the judgment of the learned Commissioner and find that in para. Last but one of the judgment, this point was duly considered and the learned commissioner after consulting the record and taking into consideration the statement of Office Kanungo found that these entries were made during the tenure of the appellant, and the stand of the appellant was absolutely incorrect. We have also carefully taken into consideration the entire inquiry report and find that there was ample evidence on the record to show that the appellant was guilty of making wrong entries in Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin relating to the complaint and was in the habit of doing so. This being the case, we have no hesitation to .Hold that the appellant was responsible for forgery, interpolation and additions in the revenue record and the punishment visited upon him was neither harsh nor unjustified.
9. In view of the two concurrent findings of facts based on sufficient material available on the record against the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere with the two well detailed and well considered orders of the Assistant Commissioner, as well as of learned Commissioner, Faisalabad. Resultantly we dismiss this appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.