1. ORDER Ashfaq Ali Khan (Member).--In the year 1965 the appellant Bahadar Ali was the Patwari of Halqa Hajiwala in Gujrat Tehsil. Messrs Habibullah and Rehmatullah sons of Abdur Rehman made an application to the Collector Gujrat on 4-11-1965. In this application it was alleged that the agricultural land belonging to the applicants had been sold away by Bahadar Ali appellant through mutations Nos. 1588 and 1589 of village Dhodha, Tehsil Gujrat without their knowledge, to one Bahadar Khan son of Abdullah of village Peru Shah. After a preliminary inquiry the appellant was chage-sheeted as under: ''While posted at cirle Hajiwala, you Bahadar Ali, through efforts succeeded to get Khasra Nos. 1020, 640, 243, 1611/1591, 195/2, 1613, 750/1, 1264, 181/2, 923/2, 960/1, 415/2 and 117/2, situated in village Dhodha, Tehsil and District Gujrat, confirmed in the names of Habibullah and Rehmatullah sons of Abdur Rehman, caste Arain, in their absence, since you had cordial relations with Khair Din, who was their maternal uncle. (1)After confirmation, through a conspiracy with Consolidation Patwari Ziafat Abbas, you managed to get mutation Nos 1588 (sale) and 1959 (sale) attested in the absence of Habibullah and Rehmatullah, when Habibullah allottee was in Railway Service at Texila and Rehmatullah was running a shop at Phalia. (2)That after the fraudulent attestation of the mutations by you with a mala fide intention and in order'to camouflage your guilt, either directly or through connivances misplaced the mutations Nos. 1588, 1589 and 1593, in order to destroy the proof against you. 1975 Bahadar Ali v. Collector, Gujrat 113 (Ashfaq Ali Khan, Member) (3)Your this act is based on dishonesty.' Also your behaviour with the Public is not good. From the above, it is clear that you are quite irresponsible, and dishonest and inefficient Government servant. You are. therefore, called upon to explain why you should not be proceeded against under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 for a major penalty." The Revenue Assistant, Gujrat was appointed Inquiry Officer. He examined 9 prosecution witnessed and 3 defence witnesses besides obtaining the information of 2 P C S Officers under whom the appellant had worked as Patwari in the past. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that all the three charges stood proved against Bahadur Ali Patwari. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice and a copy of the Inquiry Report was also supplied to him. He made his explanation to the show-cause notice on 19th March, 1969. The appellant was also heard in person by the then Collector Gujrat on 4-4-1969. He had requested the Collector for an adjournment and further hearing on the plea that he had to examine the case file. He was ordered to re-appear before the Collector on 18-4-1969. Tne appellant, however, did not appear on 18-4-1969, 2-5-1969, 6-6-1969, 20-6-1969, 25-7-1969, 29-8-1969 and 26 9-1969 on various pretexts.
2. The collector Gujrat made the order of his dismissal from Government Service on 19-12-19.9 and the appellant was absent from hearing on that day. The Collector in his order observed: "There is_ no hope of service of any notice on him because his whereabouts are not known." It is therefore evident that though the appellant had on his own request obtained an adjournment from the Collector for 18th April 1969, he did not turn up on that date and never cared to enquire about the next date of hearing. There is no doubt in our minds that he was afforded many opportunities of being heard by the Collector but he did not avail any. The Collector held that the charges against the appellant had been proved beyond any doubt. He also considered two applications by the residents of village Goliki and one Sultan Shah, retired Government pensioner of the same village addressed to the Martial Law authorities and the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat. According to the Collector these applications unveiled "nefarious activities'* of the appellant. The Tehsildar Gujrat was asked to arrange service of notice for the appearance of the appellant before the Collector and he reported on 7-9-1969 that the Patwari was absent from his circle. The Tehsildar had reported that this Patwari had been a source of trouble ever since he was posted at Goliki after having remained under suspension before that. The Tehsildar also reported that the appellant was deliberately avoiding his appearance before the Collector. In his order of dismissal of the appellant from Government Service the Collector, Gujrat has discussed the inquiry report in detail and concluded thus:-- "From the above facts, I am inclined to conclude that the accused Patwari is directly responsible for the bogus and fraudulent mutations of sale of the landed property of Messrs Habibullah Rehmatullah. The accused has been avoiding the finalization of the inquiry against him by wilfully absenting himself, even from his circle. There is no doubt left that the accused is addicted to ulterior motives, an unwilling worker and always absent from duty. He fraudulently got mutations Nos. 1588 and 1589 attested and thereafter, most cunningly stole away the same from Tebsil Office and destroyed in order to eliminate any proof against him. A perusal of his service record shows that in 1962, he was caught accepting bribe, but acquitted on benefit of doubt. Dishonest and corrupt Official, enjoys very bad reputation. After having perused these remarks one has yet to come across a report worse than this. He certainly enjoys very bad reputation, is ill-behaved and unreliable. The administration is better without such an indisciplined squad. I therefore, dismiss him from Government Service with immediate effect. He should be informed accordingly." The appellant appealed from the order of his dismissal by the Collector Gujrat to the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division. Ths Commissioner in a detailed and elaborate order discussed the allegations against the appellant, his explanation and the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Collector. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal, the charge-sheet, the appellant's reply to the charge- sheet and the documents pertaining to the inquiry which have been submitted by the appellant.
3. We have also heard the leaned counsel for the appellant who has brought up nothing which should add to the evidence already on record. The learned counsel for the appellant took the plea that no show-cause notice was served to the appellant but as shown above this plea is not supported by the dccuments on record. On careful consideration of the record and the arguments put forward by the counsel for the appellant we do not find any grounds for interfering with the order of the Collector Gujrat dated 19-12-1969 and the Commissioner's appellate order dated 14th April 1970. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.