' Muhammad Sharif, ex-Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals. Act, 1974, against the order of dismissal from service dated 2nd June, 1982 passed by respondent No, 1 and the appellate order dated 6th February, 1984 passed by respondent No,
2. He has impleaded the Collector/A. C., Saddar Sub-Division, Multan, as well as Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be re- instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Patwari Halqa Bakhar Arbi, committed some irregularities indicated below and the A. C./Collector, Multan charge-sheeted him for the same :-
(1) That during the preparation of Rigister Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1970 Mauza Bakhar Arbi, at Khatta No, 244, 20 shares of Qasim son of Raham Ali were not entered due to some omission but later on the same shares were shown in the name of one Mahmud Khan son of Sultan Khan despite the fact that no transfer had taken place in the name of Mahmud Khan.
(2) In Register Haqdaran Zamin 1974-75 No, 293 he has again been shown as owner of the said 20 shares with a different ink.
(3) Taking advantage from the above mentioned wrong entry Mahmud Khan obtained a copy of Jamabandi issued by the accused official and sold the said share of land against a sum of Rs, 8,000 to Muhammad All etc. Through a registered deed on the basis of which mutuation No, 1334 was entered by the accused official and sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 22nd October, 1978.
(4) On coming to know about the above mentioned sale transaction, Qasim Ali the original owner contacted the accused official who issued him a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 showing him the owner of 20/320 shares despite the fact that the said share had been sold vide Mutation No, 1334 and thus the accused official succeeded to satisfy Qasim Ali by issuing him a copy which was against the Revenue Record.
(5) On 29th June, 1980 Qasim Ali gave an application to the Tehsildar which contained that his land has been sold illegally and the accused official had issued him a bogus copy of Jamabandi on 20th January, 1979 on which Muhammad All etc. The vendees of Mutation No, 1334, deposed that Mahmud Khan in connivance with Manzoor Ahmad (Retd. Patwari) and the accused official has extorted Rs, 8,000 from them fraudulently.
' In reply to the charges the appellant refuted the same and submitted that the interpolation of name of Mahmud Khan was made by his predecessors and he correctly entered Mutation No, 1334 on the basis of revenue record and issued no copy of Fard Malkiat to Qasim Ali on 20th January, 1979. He further pleaded that the statements of vendees Muhammad All etc. Were not based on facts and he had no concern with the sale of land. A show-cause notice was served on him to which he replied. Learned A. C./Collector after making thorough probe into the matter and after hearing the contentions of the appellant found that the allegations were of serious nature and stood proved against him. He dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 2nd June, 1982. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who gave him an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the law point involved and the entire facts of the case, dismissed his appeal vide order, dated 6th February, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I 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. S. Learned counsel for the appellant has first of all raised certain legal objections as under :-
(I) The appellant was not informed in writing by the competent authority for proceeding against him under rule 6 (3) of the E & D Rules, 1975, and the regular enquiry was must in the circumstances.
(ii) If at all, action was necessitated under section 6 (3), there was no provision for final show- cause notice. WO The procedure adopted was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rules.
(iv) That while holding enquiry he passed dismissal order which was against law.
' With regard to the merits of the case, it was submitted that in January, 1971, in Khata No, 244 there was no entry in favour of the said Qasim Ali in Purt Sarkar while Mehmood son of Sultan had been shown as the owner in the Purt Patwar by Hafeez Ullah Patwari. It was further argued that similarly in the years 1974-75, name of Mehmood son of Sultan appears in the Purt Sarkar and Patwar both, and this was the record from where the appellant prepared Furd Malkiat with regard to Khata No, 293, in favour of Mehmood vide Daily Diary Report No, 20 dated 13th September, 1978. It was further stated that Mehmood sold the property in question and Mutatation No, 1334 was duly entered by the appellant having been sanctioned by the Revenue Officer. In this manner it was submitted that the appellant was not at all guilty and in fact what had been done, had been done by the ex- Patwaris.
6. On the other hand learned District Attoriey has adopted the parawise comments so submitted by the A.C./Collector, Saddar Sub-Division, Multan and has stoutly defended the judgment of the learned A.C./Collector, Multan and Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan.
7. With regard to the legal objections it was submitted that the first shim-cause notice does not contain under rule 6 (3) and second show-cause notice does contain mention of rule 6 (3) and the appellant was given personal hearing. According to him the very fact that at no stage the enquiry was conducted and no Authorised Officer was appointed, clearly indicates that the A. C./Collector assumed himself as Authorised Officer as well as Authority under the Delegation of Powers Rules.
8. With regard _ to the merits of the case, it was submitted that although it was correct that in the Purt Sarkar of register Haqdaran Zamin of village Bhakkar Arbi for the year 1970-71, the name of Mehmood son of Sultan did not find place in Khata No, 244 whereas the name of Mehmood son of Sultan was added in Part Patwar of the said register Haqdaran afterwards in different hand and ink.
In the end he has vehemently denied that the said addition was made by the appellant's predecessors. He submitted that in fact the name of Qasim Ali owner of 20 shares was erroneously omitted by Hafeez Patwari and subsequent to the preparation of the said register Haqdaran, name of Mehmood Khan son of Sultan Khan was added instead of Qasim Ali in different ink and handwriting. Learned District Attorney further submitted that the appellant entered Mutation No, 1334 on 12th October, 1978 on the basis of said registered sale-deed and the mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 22nd October, 1978. But when Qasim Ali-who was the actual owner of 20-320 shares, in dispute, came to know that his land had been sold fraudulently, he approached the appellant who in order to satisfy him, issued a copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1974-75, on 20th January, 1979, in which Qasim Ali was shown to be owner of 20/320 share despite the fact that these shares had already been alienated vide Mutation No, 1334 dated 22nd October, 1978. The point made by the learned District Attorney was that no reference was given by the appellant on the copy so issued to Qasim Ali and in this way succeeded to satisfy the actual owner of the land. He has submitted that both orders of A.C./ Collector and Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan are detailed on and have dealt each and every aspect of the case and they are liable to be maintained.
9. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the two impugned judgments and find that in both these judgments all the aspects of the case have been properly dealt with and the defence of the appellant has been duly refuted.
According to the history of the case, even by the learned Commissioner in para. 4 of his judgment indicated that in an appeal regarding correction of khasra Girdwari relating to crop kharif 1980 in respect of khasra No, 1180 situated in village Taraf Mubarik Awal, Tehsil Multan the District Collector vide his order, dated 27th February, 1982, observed that the appellant had made wrong entries in the names of the appellants and he admitted in his report dated 19th September, 1981 that the same had been made on the information of the appellants and thus he failed to discharge his duties vigilently and acted beyond his jurisdiction. The plea of the appellant that he took charge of Halqa Qutab Pur on 5th August, 1978, the name of Qasim Ali was omitted and that of Mahmuu was recorded by his predecessors, and the entry was recorded much before his taking over this has been refuted by the representative who produced the record and stated that the name of Mahmud Khan was entered in different ink. Learned Commissioner found that the entry was made with mala fide intention. While examining record of the learned Commissioner found that in the register Haqdaran-e-Zamin 1966-67, it was on record that Qasim Ali purchased land to the extent of 20 share and his name was entered as sharer at Khata No, 138/99. According to him this entry stood recorded in both part Sarkar and Purt Patwar, however name of Qasim Ali omitted both from Part Sarkar in the register of Haqdaran-e-Zamin for 1970-71, in which total area i. e. 320 share were entered but when the total of break up was checked up it was found to be 300. Unless the name of Qasim Ali stood entered the entry could not be considered correct. Thus according to the learned Commissioner it was at that time the name of Qasim Ali was not entered in Purt Patwar and instead the name of Mahmud was entered later on and in subsequent register Haqdaran-e-Zamin 1974-75, the name of Mahmud stood entered in both Part Patwar and Part Sarkar. His conclusion that since registers were prepared keeping in view the entries/mutations recorded in the register of 1970-71 therefore, it cannot be denied that the name of Mahmud should not have been entered in Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin for 1974-75 as in the middle of this register some pages were changed as they do not hold the size of other papers. He has also referred to the entry of Purtal of Girdawar Halqa and Revenue Officer record in both parts of registers for the year 1970-71 and 1974- 75, wherein there was no mention of omission of the name of Qasim Ali noor the entry of Mahmud.
His conclusion that the name of Qasim Ali was omitted from 1970-71 and have been repeated uptill 1975 and afterwards. The appellant with the collusion of Mahmud maneouvered to enter his name and thus he issued Fard Malkiat to Mahmud who sold the land through sale deed which was registered on 18th September, 1978. He did not accept the plea of the appellant that he did not enter the name of Mahmud and detected the false entry and reported this to the higher authority as the damage had also been done due to mala fide design as of the appellant. After reading the two judgments of the learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector as well as of the Commissioner, I am fully in accord with them since the record was in the custody of the appellant and the appellant had failed to prove otherwise.
10. Moreover, it is fully proved on the record and duly admitted by the appellant that the sale mutation was duly entered by him and got I attested from the Revenue Office. In view of the above I do not find any justification to interfere with the two concurrent findings of facts after examining the complete record by the Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any force. There will be no order as to costs.