MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). --Irshad Ahmad, Ex-Patwari, has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order dated 4-8-1985 of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan who upheld the order dated 2-5-1985 of the A.C/ Collector, Chichawatni dismissing the appellant from service. The appellant has impleaded', the State, Commissioner, Multan Division and A.C/Collector, Chichawatni, as respondents.
2. Through this appeal the appellant Irshad Ahmad has prayed that the impugned orders dated 2- 5-1985 of the A.C/Collector and 4-8-1985 of the Commissioner, Multan Division, may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in the service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Irshad Ahmad was charge-sheeted or. The allegation that he on 1-11-1984 issued a copy of "Khasra Girdawari" regarding Khasra No. 87/22 of crops w.e.f. Kharif 1973 to Rabi 1977 on payment to Murid s/o Lutkan. The appellant in the questioned documents contrary to the entry in the original record disclosed the name of the tenant in the column of cultivation the name of Rajju s/o Bahadra instead of Rajju s/o Bahawala. In this manner by issuing an incorrect copy to appellant committed a misconduct. The appellant pleaded not guilty. Regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant who was found guilty. The appellant was issued final show-cause notice and pleaded that due to haste the appellant committed the alleged fault. The appellant at the time-of personal hearing begged pardon. Vide order dated 2-5- 1985 the appellant was dismissed from the service by the A.C/Collector, Chichawatni. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record was dismissed by learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan vide his order dated 4-8-1985. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that throughout the inquiry proceedings no ulterior motive was alleged against the appellant, rather he was found negligent in performance of his duties through issue of the questioned copy of the Khasra Girdawari. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that in a separate case the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that Rajju s/o Bahadra was the actual person but the learned Commissioner did not recollect the same at the time of hearing the departmental appeal of the appellant and issued the impugned order of the dismissal of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that no person with the name of Rajju s/o Bahawala had ever existed in the village and, therefore, the appellant need not be treated at fault and as such no wrongful gain or loss resulted through issue of incorrect copy of the Khasra Girdawari.
5. Learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that undisputedly incorrect and interpolated copies of Khasra Girdawari were supplied by the appellant Irshad Ahmad. The learned District Attorney added that the plea of the appellant has no legal bearing that the questioned copies did not cause any loss or gain to any person or that Rajju s/o Bahadra was the actual person. Similarly the plea of the appellant has also no footing that the learned Commissioner, in another case accepted the appeal of Rajju s/o Bahadra. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant was to issue the correct copy according to the record and not on his own whims much less on the plea that in another case the learned Commissioner accepted appeal of Rajju s/o Bahadra, no matter that the appellant did not raise this point during the hearing of the departmental appeal. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant was expected to look into previous entries and there was no occasion or justification for the deviation.
6. We have carefully examined the points raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney for the respondent. We have also consulted the relevant record including the respondents' written objections. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant had conceded the issue of incorrect copies of Khasra Girdawari and pleaded that he did it in haste. It is also on the record that the appellant had begged pardon before the Collector, Chichawatni, as such guilt of the appellant stands established for issue of incorrect copy of the Khasra Girdawari. However, we further find that there was no ulterior motive on the part of the appellant for issuing the same.
7. Hence the appeal is accepted to the extent that the penalty of dismissal from service is converted to the penalty of "Censure" being his first lapse without ulterior motive. The appellant to be reinstated in the service and the intervening period w.e.f. The date of issue of the impugned order of the Collector vide which the appellant was dismissed from service and the implementation of this order vide which the appellant is to be reinstated to be treated as leave without pay.
No order as to costs.
M. Y.H./99/Sr.P