MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA CHAIRMAN.- Akbar Ali, ex- Patwari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 26.1.1986 and 13.1.1987 passed by respondents. The appellant has impleaded Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, D.C Sheikhupura and A.C./Collector, Sub Division Sheikhupura as respondents.
2. Salient features of this case briefly are that the D.C. Sheikhupura during the course of inspection of record found that appellant had failed to carry out Khasra Girdawari 1985 within the scheduled period and columns No.2 and 3 of Khasra Girdawari had also been left blank.
3. The D.C. Referred the case to the Assistant Commissioner Sheikhupura, for disciplinary action against the appellant. The appellant was served with a show cause notice which is as under: i) You failed to carry out the Girdawari of your Circle within the the. ii) You left blank column No.2 & 3 of the Register Khasra Girdawari relating to ownership tenancy to Kharif 1985.
4. After finding his reply unsatisfactory the appellant was compulsorily retired from service by respondent No.3 vide order dated 26.1.1986. The appellant filed a departmental appeal before respondent No.1 which was also rejected on 13.1.1989. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney with the assistance of the representative of the department and have perused the record with care.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the date for completion of the record was 30.10.1985 whereas the inspection was made by the Deputy Commissioner on 29.10.1985. Appellant had still 2 days at his disposal to complete the record. Further stated that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case punishment awarded to the appellant is to harsh.
Conversely the learned D.A. Has strongly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the impugned orders passed by respondents are quite legal and justified and relied upon the comments furnished by the respondents.
7. We have given anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the Patwari was suspended from service on 5.3.1964 to 31.1.1965. He was also dismissed from service on 30.6.1976 and retired and then reinstated on 16-11-1977. He was again 16.11.1977. He was again dismissed on 16.11.1978 and then reinstated on 16.11.78 and then reinstated on 15.2.1980 by Service Tribunal. He remained under suspension from 1.6.1984 and was reinstated on 7.12,84. We also find that column No: 2 & 3 of the khasra Girdawari were left blank by the appellant.
The allegations against the appellant are fully proved. The details of suspension and dismissal of the appellant reveal that the Patwari does not seem to be performing his duties in accordance with law. The appellant has been rightly dealt with by his superiors and he was retired compulsorily from service in accordance with the rules and regulation. His compulsory retirement from service seems quite justified.
8. In the light of the above discussion and keeping in view the bad record of the appellant the instant appeal is dismissed as having no merits, with no order as to costs.