1. ' M. ASLAM AVAIS (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal before the Full Board under rule 14(1) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 read with Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, Sr. No, 6 of Schedule referred to in rule 2(1) ibid, against the order of the Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, dated 24-1-1967, whereby the appellant was reduced in rank and reverted as Naib Tehsildar. The facts of the case in brief are that appellant Ahmad Mansoor, formerly Tehsildar Shahpur, was charge-sheeted on the allegation of misconduct and inefficiency by Mr. A. G. Raza, Member, Revenue Establishment, Board of Revenue, Punjab, as under :- "(i) That you while posted as Tehsildar, Shahpur left Tehsil Headquarters without permission of the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner on the afternoon of 3rd January 1974, and remained absent till the morning of 7th January 1974. The Assistant Commissioner and the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Shahpur were permitted by the Deputy Commissioner to leave the headquarters during these days (Eid Holidays) on the clear understanding that you would remain at the headquarters. On receiving report from the Assistant Commissioner, Shahpur the Deputy Commissioner verbally enquired from you, as to the circumstances leading to this serious lapse on your part, but you could not give a satisfactory explanation except saying that 'I am sorry'.
(ii) That ever since joining as Tehsildar, Shahpur, you had shown extreme irresponsibility in the discharge of your official duties. You had not taken any interest in the collection of land revenue, although the Assistant Commissioner asked you repeatedly both verbally and in writing to speed up the recovery work and clear the outstanding Government dues. As a result an amount of Rs, 1,60,000 remained outstanding against the defaulters in Tehsil Shahpur.
(iii) That in monthly statement for December 1973, you had shown that 20 Mutations were pending with you, but at the time of Inspection of your Kanungoi circles i.e, Farooqa and Sahiwal, it was found that actually 217 mutations were pending with you till 31-12-1973, out of which some related to the year 1971. As such you furnished wrong statement in order to conceal your inefficiency. You took little interest in the disposal of mutations and it appears that you were in the habit of giving wrong figures in the statement.
(iv) That you, as Tehsildar Shahpur, also took little interest in the disposal of revenue cases, and other revenue work as is evident from the d.o. Letters Nos. 1138-S/SW, dated 15/17-10-1973 and 1307- S/SW, dated 23-11-1973 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha to you.".
2. ' The appellant submitted his explanation with regard to these charges levelled against him under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The explanation was examined and found unsatisfactory. Thereafter an enquiry was ordered to be held. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, Sargodha was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he submitted the enquiry report with his findings on 28.8-1975. The appellant was found by the Enquiry Officer to be guilty of all the charges except charge No, (ii). After examination of the enquiry report and other relevant record, the competent Authority took a provisional decision that penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed on the appellant. Accordingly a notice under rule 9(1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, was served on the appellant. A reply thereto was furnished by the appellant on 1-12-1975. He did not desire to be heard in person but for the sake of justice he was given a chance of personal hearing on 20-1-1976. The points explained by him during the personal hearing were summarised in a statement which was signed by him. In the statement the appellant requested that a lenient view may be taken in his case as he was holding the charge of Tehsildar for the first time and had not yet gained much experience.
3. The reply to the charges was also found unsatisfactory by the Member (Revenue Estt.) Board of Revenue, who vide the impugned order reduced the rank of the appellant from Tehsildar to Naib Tehsildar. Hence the present appeal before the Full Board on the following grounds :-
(i) That the findings of the Senior Member, Board of Revenue are not warranted by the evidence and facts on record;
(ii) the Senior Member, Board of Revenue failed to take into consideration the past performance and the appellants 15 years unblamished record of service against whom no enquiry whatsoever for any act of omission or commission was ever held. He was made victim for the first time in this enquiry on account of personal vendetta;
(iii) that charge No, 2 was not proved against the appellant which is more than sufficient to prove that the so-called charges were framed by the A. C., Shabpur on account of his personal vengeance;
(Iv) the appellant refutes all the charges with the addition that the findings of the Senior Member, Board of Revenue tantamount to permanent bar for further promotion of the appellant as Tehsildar.
4. The appellant was heard by us at length and the record of the case was carefully perused. With regard to the first charge that the appellant left the Tehsil headquarters without the permission of his supervisory officers is proved on the basis of the evidence on record. The charge is actually not denied by him. He only pleads that a lenient view may be taken since he had gone home on account of Eid holidays. This was a very serious lapse on the part of an Officer Incharge of a Tehsil and there appears to us little justification for condoning it. The charge stands proved against the appellant.
5. ' The appellant has already been exonerated of charge No, (II) in respect of recovery of Government dues.
6. ' As regards charge No, (iii) the appellant has stated that he held charge of Shahpur Tehsil only for about six months i.e, from 28.7-1973 to 6-1-1974. Mutations relating to the year 1971 and pending decision when he took over charge of the tehsil should not be taken into account while asssessing his work in regard to the disposal of mutations. He further stated that a new distribution of halqas was sanctioned by the Collector on 5-11-1973 and he was given charge of Farooqa Kanungoi Circle.
7. Due to this change he could not check the correctness of the figures supplied by the field Kanungos of Shahpur and Farooqa circles. He contends that it was the field staff who was responsible for supplying wrong figures about the number of pending mutations. This plea is not tenable. As a touring officer a Tehsildar is supposed to know the number of mutations penning within his charge. The discrepancy between the correct figures of pending mutations (217) and those supplied by him to the Head Office (20) is so glaring that it should have been noted by him immediately the statement was put up to him by the office for his approval and signatures. As the monthly statement of pending mutations was submitted to the Sadar Office under they signatures of the appellant it was his duty to verify its correctness and since he failed to do so we have no option but to hold the charge proved against him.
8. ' As regards Charge No, (iv) the appellant has taken the plea that he remained on flood during the months of September and October. We have gone through the figures of cases pending and disposed of by the appellant during the period he remained Tehsildar from 28-7-1973 to 16-1-1914.
9. The number of cases pending on 1-8-1973 was 51-59 cases were instituted during the month of September 1973. Thus the appellant was required to dispose of 110 cases by the end of the calendar year. His disposal of the cases during the months of September, October, November and December 1973 was 11, 14, 47 and 25 respectively. Thus at the end of December 1973 only 13 cases were left undisposed of. We are, therefore of the view that the disposal of revenue cases by the appellant during this period he remained in charge of Shahpur Tehsil was satisfactory. The appellant is accordingly absolved of this charge. In view of the above findings we hold the appellant guilty of Charges Nos. (i) and (iii). We have also gone through his record of service which cannot be termed as good. The order of the learned Single Member is accordingly upheld and the appeal of the accused official is rejected. However, we consider that it is not in the interest of justice to permanently debar the appellant from being promoted. We, therefore, dispose of the case with the observation that the appellant be considered for promotion if he obtains two consecutive good reports.
10. ' S. M. NASIM (MEMBER).-I concur.
11. ' M. S. CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).---I concur.