ORDERMUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J. - Through this constitutional petition, Muhammad Hussain, petitioner, seeks declaration to the effect that the order dated 114.9,1988 of District Collector, Vehari, order dated 7.3.1989 of the Commissioner. Multan Division, Multan, respondent No.3, and orders dated 23- 12-1989 and 30-4-1990 passed by the Member (Revenue). Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Lahore, respondent No.2, are without lawful authority and' of no legal effect.
2. The petitioner was a permanent Lumberdar of Chak No.l39/W.B. Tehsil Mailsi. District Vehari. On the recommendation made by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mailsi, the learned District Collector, Vehari, respondent No.4, vide his order dated 14.9.1988, dismissed him from the office of Lumberdar. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner. Multan Dn. Multan, which was dismissed on 7.3.1989. Feeling still dis-satisfied, he tiled revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, which to was dismissed on 23.12.1989. He did not stop and filed an application before the Member, Board of Revenue, for the review of his order dated 23.12.1989. This review application was also dismissed on 30.4.1989. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was performing his duties to the entire satisfaction of the Revenue officers and that the complaint made to the Assistant Commissioner by Allah Bakhsh was false; that the allegations that the petitioner did not receive Dhal Bachh for the year 1987, or that he refused to deposit PANJOTARA were false and that since prior to the complaint of Allah Bakhsh, the Assistant Commissioner had disposed of an earlier complaint against the petitioner with a warning to him and the appeal filed against that order by one Rashid Ahmad was pending before the Commissioner, so no action could have been taken on the second complaint filed by Allah Bakhsh; that since the petitioner had already been given warning by the Assistant Commissioner on the same charge, therefore, he could not have been punished twice by the District Collector and that since Mr. Abdul Waheed (Member) had passed an order on 7.9.1989 as a Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, so he could not have heard the review application, as a Memebr (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with him. The learned District Collector, the learned Commissioner and the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, have concurrently found that the petitioner was not discharging his duties properly; that he was guilty of over-charging Chaukidara dues; that he failed to deposit PUNJOTARA for Rabi 1986 and also refused to receive Dhal Banch for Rabi 1987. There is nothing on the record to show that the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner were false. The petitioner had appeared before Mr. Abdul Waheed, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Lahore, at the the of hearing of the review application. But no objection to his hearing of the review application was made at that the. The review application was filed against the order passed by Malik Abdul Majid, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 23-12-1989. Mr. Abdul Waheed, Memebr (Revenue), Board of Revenue, ' Punjab, Lahore, refused to interfere with the order dated 23.12.1989 of Malik Abdul Majid, Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, on the ground that the learned counsel could no point out any patent error or omission on the face of the record, which could justify the review of the order impugned before him. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the patitioner do not make out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction, with the well reasoned orders of respondents No.2 to 4.