MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN. - Manzoor Ahmed (formerly Patwari) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 8.7.1987 and 1.11.1987 passed by the respondents No. 2 & 1 respectively. The appellant has impleaded the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub-Division, Narowal, District Sialkot and the Tehsildar Narowal as respondents. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appeal are that the appellant was charge sheeted by the respondent No. 2 as under :- ((urdu Taxts Paragraphs))
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Narowal Sub-Division (Respondeat No. 2) had appointed the Tehsildar, Narowal (Respondent No. 3) as Enquiry Officer who after holding an enquiry had held the appellant guilty of the above noted charges vide his Enquiry report dated 24.5.1987. The Assistant Commissioner, Narowal Sub-Division (Respondent No. 2) after due proceedings and agreeing with the Enquiry Officer passed his impugned orders dated 8.7.87 concluding para of which is reproduced below :- ((urdu Taxts Paragraphs))
(( Urdu Taxts words))While perusing the impugned order dated 8.7.87 of the Assistant Commissioner Narowal Sub-Division (Respondent No. 1) in the above quoted order the word appeared to have been interpolated /over written into the word which was not taken note of by the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division Respondent No. 1). Against the impugned order dated 8.7.1987 of Respondent No. 2 the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division (Respondent No. 1) which was rejected vide impugned order dated 1.11.1987. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record with the assistance of the representative of the Department.
5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector (Respondent No. 2) was void as no show cause notice was issued to the appellant nor he was provided any opportunity of personal hearing. He also contended that the enquiry officer did not examine any witness before submitting the enquiry report and as such substantial injustice was done to the appellant.
6. Conversely the learned District Attorney rebutted from the relevant record all the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally by the respondents strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. He asserted that the appellant had wilfully concealed the correct decision of inheritance mutation No. 41 regarding Dilmir deceased and wrongly entered the subsequent inheritance mutation No. 230 regarding the same deceased Dilmir definitely with the ulterior motive of depriving the vendees of mutation No. 42 of their valuable rights. Learned District Attorney prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be allowed to stand in the light of comments/report furnished by the respondents.
7. After having heard the parties and having gone through the record we find that the appellant wrongly entered on 8.12.1986 the legal heirs of the deceased Dilmir in mutation No. 230 in contradiction of those entered, verified and sanctioned on mutation No. 41 much earlier on 24.10.74 which was never challenged by any one in any forum. It was merely reviewed due to the sole technical reason that at one stage "status quo" has been ordered by the Honourable High Court in some writ Petition. Thus the appellant concealed the correct decision of original inheritance mutation No. 41 regarding Dilmir deceased and wilfully and wrongly entered a new inheritance mutation No. 230 of the same deceased Dilmir showing some altogether different persons as legal heir of Dilmir deceased, obviously for ulterior motives. It is quite clear that mutation No. 230 was wilfully and wrongfully entered by the appellant contrary to mutation No. 41 in order to deprive the vendees of mutation No. 42 of their valuable legal rights. Thus we find that the above quoted charge against the appellant stood proved from the record beyond any doubt. After having checked up the record we find no illegality on the point of law or fact or any illegal exercise of the jurisdiction in impugned orders passed by respondents. Appellant's counsel has failed to pin point and establish any legal defect in the department proceedings undertaken by the respondents against the appellant which might have prejudiced any right of the appellant.
8. Thus in the above stated circumstances the appeal has no merit and we find no cogent grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Narowal Sub-Division (Respondent No.2) and the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala (Respondent No. 1). Resultantly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Parties be informed.