1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--This is an appeal filed by the Provincial Government from the judgment and decree passed by the Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh on 22-12-1973. Earlier the appellant hud preferred an appeal against the said decision in the Court of District Judge, Muzaffargarh. On the constitution of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal the appeal before the District Judge abated. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent Haq Nawaz had been working as Patwari, Halqa Colony Circle, Khangarh, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh against a permanent post. On 21st October, 1966 allegations of corruption were made against him in a charge-sheet issued to him. The first allegation was that he had demanded and obtained the illegal gratification of Rs. 150 from one Ghulain Muhay-ud-Din son of Mahmood Shah on 1-3*1964. A raid by a Magistrate accompanied by a Sub-Inspector of Police of the Anti-Corruption Department was made on the same day but the raiding party could not recover Rs. 150 which were alleged to have been received by the respondent as illegal gratification. The second charge against the respondent was that he had received Rs. 20 as a bribe from one Syed Imdad Ali Shah for entering a mutation of land. Likewise he had received Rs. 90 from one Qadir Bux in respect of another mutation. An inquiry was ordered to be made into these allegations and the Revenue Assistant Muzaffargarh was appointed Inquiry Officer. According to the report of the Inquiry Officer the raid made on 1-3-1966 by the Anti- Corruption staff had failed as the signed currency notes could not be recovered from the respondent. As regards the allegations of illegal gratification for entering mutations of land, statements of 5 prosecution witnesses were recorded. Some of those prosecution witnesses did not support the charges of acceptance of illegal money by the respondent and the Inquiry Officer stated in his report that although the Patwari could not be successfully prosecuted for acceptance of illegal gratification, he had failed to maintain a good reputation The conclusion of the report was that it had been proved that the respondent had a bad reputation and it was recommended that one increment of his salary may be withheld but that this withholding of the increment should not take cumulative effect. On the basis of this inquiry report the Collector Muzaffargarh passed an order against the respondent on 20th October, 1969. In this order the Collector agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer but held that the charges pioved against the respondent were grave enough to justify a major penalty. The Collector therefore dismissed the respondent from service forthwith. It was against this order dated 20th October 1969 of the Collector Muzaffargarh that the respondent Abdul Haq filed his plaint in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh. The learned Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh held that the Inquiry Officer had not found Abdul Haq respondent guilty of corruption. He had only found him a man of no good reputation and had accordingly recommended withholding of one yearly increment without cumulative effect. This amounted to a minor penalty under rule 4(1 )(6) of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules. The Collector Muzaffargarh by his order of 20-10-1969 had enhanced the punishment recommended by the Inquiry Officer and had imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant. The learned Administrative Civil Judge held that since the only charge which had been proved against the respondent was that of having a reputation for corruption, the Collector Muzaffargarh could not order the dismissal of the respondent without complying with the requirements of rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Rules 9-A & 9-B read as under:-- 9-A. Where it appears to the authority, whether on considering the report of the officer appointed under clause (/) sub-rule (1) of rule 6, or otherwise that a Government servant has a reputation for being corrupt, the authority shall refer the case to the appropriate Tribunal appointed under rule 9-B. 9-B (1) Government shall appoint one or more Tribunals, each consisting of three senior officers, to conduct enquiries against such Government servants as have a reputation for being corrupt. [2) The procedure to be followed by the authority and the Tribunal for an enquiry under rules 9-A and 9-B shall mutatis mutandis, be the same as prescribed in rule 6-A, rule 6-B and rules 8, 9 and 10. As the case of the respondent was not referred to a competent Tribunal the learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh held that the order of the Collector Muzaffargarh dated 20th October 1969, dismissing the respondent Abdul Haq from service was illegal ultra vires% void and ineffective against the respondent We have heard the leamed Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant and have also gone through the file of the case produced by him. We have come to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were correct and the Collector Muzaffargarh exceeded his powers in ordering tne A dismissal of the respondent without complying with the requirements of rules 9-A, 9-B, 9-D of the Efficiency aad Discipline Rules. We therefore see no justification for interfering with the order of the Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh dated 29th February, 1973. This appeal is dissmissed in limine.