' Munshi Muhammad Farooq, ex-Patwari, Mauza Botala, Tehsil and District Khushab has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Member, (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders of respondent No, 1, dated 23rd August 1983, respondent No, 2, dated 6th November, 1982 and respondent No, 3, dated 24th July, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with retrospective effect.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1982 when the appellant was working as Patwari one person Naib-Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz son of Sher Muhammad filed a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Jauharabad against the appellant to the effect that the Mutation No, 329, dated 6th April, 1980 has not been incorporated in the Jamabandi and thereafter due to this omission, a second Mutation No, 368, dated 23rd July, 1981 was sanctioned. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad senttcation to the Naib-Tehsildar for report and the Tehsildar Kh vide his order dated 17th April, 1982 again sent the case after enquiry to the A.
C./Collector, Jauharabad for further action. The appellant was served on 19th May, 1982 with a show-cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, with four charges. A reply to the show-cause notice was given by the appellant. The appellant was also heard in person by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad. The appellant was found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jaubarabad vide order dated 24th June, 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected vide order dated 6th November, 1982. The appellant made a revision petition to the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide his order dated 23rd August, 1983. Hence this appeal.
4, I have heard the parties i. e. Malik Ghulam Nabi, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been held responsible for the following charges :- "(a) That on the complaints of Naib-Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz submitted to worthy D. M. L. A. And Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha it has been revealed that while working as Circle Patwari Botala, you entered mutation of sale No, 329 on 6th April, 1980 on behalf of Ghulam Jilani etc. In favour of Muhammad Mumtaz etc. Regarding the land measuring 52.6 Kanals, situated in village Botala sold out in consideration for Rs, 25,000 through a decree of the civil Court with your connivance, a mutation of which was sanctioned on 10th June, 1980 without comparison by the Field Qanungo, but you did not incorporate this transaction in red ink in the Record of Rights for your ulterior motive ;
(b) That as you had maintainad the Record of Rights of village Botala improperly and maliciously, you told Ghulam Rani and Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner on their approach for obtaining Fard for the contract of sale regarding the same holdings that the land could not be sold out until and unless mutation of inheritance were got attested regarding the two deceased brothers of Ghulam Jilani etc. And till then you concealed the fact from Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz for your ulterior motive ;
(c) That despite the fact that you were Patwari Settlement of village Botala and Mr. Aziz Ahmad was the first (incharge) Patwari, you entered mutations of inheritance Nos, 358 and 359 in your hand on 11th November, 1980 with your ulterior motive and obtained formal signatures of Patwari Aziz Ahmad regarding the alleged inheritance of Muhammad Iqbal and Allah Bakhsh for the holding already disposed of vide Mutation No, 329, dated 10th June, 1980 ;
(d) That you accepted Rs, 4,000 as illegal from Risaldar ' Muhammad Nawaz and thus again entered Mutation No 368 on 19th March, 1981 regarding the sale of the same holding on behalf of the same vendors in favour of Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz in pursuance of the decree of the civil Court, passed in consideration for Rs, 65,000 and thus you connived with Ghulam Jilani etc. In order to give them undue benefit of Rs, 65,000 and thereby caused a great loss to Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz the second vendee just to put him to a chain of litigation for which you have also admitted in the Court to the extent that the subsequent transaction should not have been executed in the presence of Mutation No, 329, dated 10th June, 1980."
' The appellant's counsel has contended that in view of Circular No, 49 issued by the Director Land Records, Punjab vide No, 4093/4278/Reader, dated 30th May, 1979 the entry in red ink in column No, 10 in the Register Haqdaran Zamin with regard to attested mutations should be entered by the Revenue Officer. Consequently, according to him, the appellant was not bound to make the entry in the Register Haqdaran Zamin of village Botala, Tehsil and District Khushab with regard to the attestation of Mutation No, 329. It has been further contended by him that Mutations Nos, 358 and 359 were entered by the appellant on 11th November, 1980 and 12th November, 1983 respectively at the behest of the then Patwari Mahal of village Botala viz. Munshi Aziz Ahmed. The appellant bad relinquished charge of this Circle on 30th September, 1980. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the last charge regarding accepting of illegal gratification from Risaldar Muhammad Nawaz, keeping in view the above facts of the case is thus unfounded, baseless and without facts. On the basis of the above arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been punished arbitrarily without proving the charge against him and impugned orders be quashed.
6. It has been, further, pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was proceeded by giving him a show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D)
Rules, 1975, which was in contravention of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The charges against the appellant were of such nature that it definitely needed an enquiry against the appellant specially when he was alleged of corruption charge as well for accepting of illegal gratification of Rs, 4,000 from Risaldar, Muhammad Nawaz. Hence, the mandatory provisions of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules have not been met in this case and the appellant has been dismissed without giving him an opportunity to produce his defence before the Enquiry Officer who was not appointed in this case. Thus, the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter and has been dismissed arbitrarily without proving the charge against him.
7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had a very clean record, unblemished service of 13 years and has never been involved in any misconduct or negligence case prior to this. It has been a first lapse on the part of the appellant and he should have been excused for the same keeping in view the law laid down through number of judgments of different Courts He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of A.
U. Mussarr he has also relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal reported Irshad Ahmad Bosal v.
Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab .
8. It has been further pointed out by the appellant's counsel that vide impugned order dated 6th November, 1983, the Commissioner, Sargodha, Division, had ordered vide para. 7 as follows :- "7. From the facts of this case I find that Munshi Aziz Ahmad allowed the appellant to make entries in the revenue record during the period 30th September, 1980 to 6th April, 1981 when the latter was officiating as Settlement Patwari. It is obvious that Munshi Aziz Ahmad who had the charge of the Mahal Circle during that period was not performing his duties at all. In fact no mutation entered in the Register of Mutations during his tenure was recorded in his own hand. Munshi Aziz Ahmad may be placed under suspension immediately and disciplinary action under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules may be initiated against him."
' In spite of above clear cut orders of the Commissioner, a lenient view against Munshi Aziz Ahmad has been taken. Thus the appellant has also been treated discriminately.
9. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that there was sufficient material available on record to proceed against the appellant and the authority had rightly decided not to hold the enquiry against the appellant and to proceed under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules.
1975. Thus no violation of the mandatory provisions of Civil Servants (E & D) Rules has been done in this case and the appellant has been proceeded against properly under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The learned District Attorney has made reliance on the record maintained by the appellants (produced before me) and has submitted that there are numerous entries in red ink in column No, 10 made by the appellant in his own hand with regard to the Mutations which had been attested. It was only with regard to mutation No, 329 that no entry was made by the appellant. In any case, Circular No, 49 dated 30th May, 1979 referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant does not preclude the appellant from making the entry in the Register Haqdaran Zamin.
Although the appellant relinquished the charge of the Circle on 30th September, 1980 yet he continued to enter mutations upto 12th May, 1982 when he entered Mutation No, 429 in village Botala. It is true that between 30th September, 1980 and 6th April, 1981 the appellant was officiating as Settlement Patwari in the area and on 6th April, 1981 he took over charge of Circle Baijar again which gave him charge of the revenue record of village Botala. Nevertheless even between 30th September, and 6th April, 1981 when he no longer held charge of Mahal Circle Baijar the appellant1 2 continued to record mutations in the register of mutations. The appellant, therefore, cannot absolve himself of the responsibilities with regard to the charges against him. Therefore, the charges against the appellant have duly been proved The appellant has been punished when he was found guilty of misconduct, thus, the impugned orders are correct, valid, lawful orders and no exception can be taken against the same.
10. I have given my anxious thought to teguments of the parties and have also consulted the record in this case produced by the respondents at the time of the enquiry. I am in agreement with the respondents that there was sufficient material available on the record and the appellant has been correctly proceeded under Rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. As far as charges against the appellant are concerned, I have carefully gone through the defence put forth by the appellant/appellant's counsel and the justification given by the respondents, I find that the charges stood proved against the appellant and he has been found guilty of misconduct.
11. A plea has been taken by the appellant's counsel that the appellant had unblemished record of service of 13 years and it being a first lapse on the part of the appellant he should have been excused and should have not been punished so harshly. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that this being his first lapse, be ignored and the appellant so pardoned for the same. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as case of A. U. Mussarat and the, judgment of this Tribunal reported as Irshad Ahmad Bosal v. Chief Secretary Government of the Punjab.
12. I have gone through the service record of the appellant and find that this contention of the appellant's counsel is correct as the appellant has generally been classified as "work and conduct- good, intelligent, good worker, pains-taking-honest and having good behavior".
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case as detailed in foregoing paras. Of this judgment and keeping in view, first lapse on the part of the appellant, with good service record of 13 years, I consider that the punishment so awarded to the appellant is harsh and there is justification in agreeing with the prayer of the appellant for taking a lenient view keeping in view the first lapse on the part of the appellant.
14. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the punishment so awarded to the appellant is modified/varied as follows :-
(1) Censure.
(2) Stoppage if two annual increments without cumulative effect.
' The appellant is reinstated in service. The period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as leave without pay. The appeal of the appellant is accepted to the above extent and the impugned orders are modified accordingly.
' There will be no order as to costs. PLD 1977 SC 24 1984 PLC (C S) 959