JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD SARWAR, MEMBER. - Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that on the receipt of complaint of Muhammad Qasim & others that 400 kanals of state land falling in Chak No. 51/DB, Tehsil Yazman District Bahawalpur was fraudulently transferred vide mutation Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in favour of Jalal Din, Muhammad Siddique, Barket Ali and Nawab, it came to light that the attested copies of the order of Deputy Commissioner/District Collector Bahawalpur dated 17.1.1985 were received by Khushi Muhammad Patwari for entering the following exchange mutations-
(1) From Chak No. 98/DNB to Ciak No. 51/DB Yazman for 100 kanals in favour of Jalal Din son of Meeran Bakhsh caste Jat.
(2) From Chak No. 98/DNB to Chak No. 51/DB for 100 kanals in favour of Muhammad Siddique s/o Sardar Khan caste Jat.
(3) From Chak No. 190/Murad to Chak No. 51/DB 100 kanals in favour of Barket Ali son of Muhammad caste Arain.
(4) From Chak No. 98/DNB to Chak No. 51/DB 99 kanals, 2 in the favour of Nawab s/o Karam Dad caste Jat.
2. In fact no order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 17.1.1985, all the 4 orders of Deputy Commissioner were forged in the Colony Branch of D.C. Office Bahawalpur. However, the attested, copies were received by Khushi Muhammad Patwari, who entered mutations Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 on 28.3.1992. The said mutations were attested by the Halqa Girdawar and were sanctioned by the appellant on 2.4.1992. The mutations were reviewed by the orders of District Collector and were cancelled. The appellant was proceeded against under Punjab Civil Servant (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 because he sanctioned the said mutations.
3. Assistant Commissioner Yazman, the Inquiry Officer in his proceedings dated 9.6.1999 came to the conclusion that orders of the Deputy Commissioner were forged in the Colony Branch of D.C.
Office, Bahawalpur. There was no i.e of allotment/exchange in the D.C. Office. Muhammad Qasim complainant deposed before the Inquiry Officer that fraud and forgery was made by Colony Staff and Revenue. Field Staff. Sardar Muhammad Younas Khan appellant neither received any illegal gratification nor was party to the fraud. The Inquiry Officer however found him guilty of sanctioning the mutations of bogus allotment.
4. The appellant was awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 26.8.1999 of Senior Member /Member (Revenue) BOR/Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department being authority because the appellant was promoted and working as Tehsildar. The review petition was dismissed on 13.1.2000. Hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Departmental Representative and District Attorney and have perused the record and written objections submitted by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that perusal of the inquiry findings reveals that the appellant neither received illegal gratification and nor was party to the fraud. He sanctioned the mutations entered on the basis of the attested copies of the order dated 17.1.1985 of Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur. He further argued that neither the Authorised Officer before giving the recommendations nor authority have considered the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
7. The respondents in the impugned order and written objections have stressed the point that attested copies of the alleged order of Deputy Commissioner dated 17.1.1985 were received in year, 1985 but the mutations were sanctioned in 1992 i.e. With the delay of7 years and the appellant tailed to deduct the fraud and attested the mutations on the basis of the bogus documents without any care and caution and was negligent and thus committed misconduct.
8. According to the Section 42 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and Para 4.7 Land Records Manual, the mutation is entered by the Patwari, attested by the Kango and sanctioned by the Revenue Officer?
The mutation once entered is to be deckled by the Revenue Officer. Rejection of the mutations on the basis that the order on which the mutation is entered is old, is not valid ground. The Revenue Staff is bound to enter and sanction the mutations on the basis of the orders passed by the Civil Courts/Revenue Courts/Officers. It was held in 1972 SCM R 322 that Revenue Authorities are under obligation to sanction mutation on the basis of decree passed by Civil Court cannot refuse mutation on the ground that decree had not been put into execution within prescribed period of limitation and therefore had become ineffective.
9. The mutations proceedings are summary in nature. The purpose of mutation is to complete the revenue record for the collection of Government dues, it is not a titled deed (PLJ 1985 Lahore 393).
10. The alleged forgery according to the finding of the Inquiry Officer was committed by the officials of Colony Branch of D.C. Office. Mutations Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 Chak No. 51/DB were entered by Khushi Muhammad Patwari Halqa, Kango verified by mutations and the appellant sanctioned the mutations. No action was taken against the staff of Colony Branch who forged the order dated 15.1.1985 of Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, the copying clerk who issued attested copies, Khushi. Muhammad Patwari who entered the mutations and Gardawar who attested the mutation.
The appellant was singled out and was made the scape goat.
11. The order of mutation is not a final order. The appeal against the order lies to the AC/Collector u/S. 161, Land Revenue Act, 1967. The order of sanctioning the mutations is open to review u/S. 163, Land Revenue Act, 1967. The mutations Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 Chak No. 51/DB were reviewed and set aside. Thus no damage was caused to the Government. The appropriate remedy against the order of sanctioning the mutation is appeal/review.
12. The Inquiry Officer further came to the conclusion that the appellant receive of no illegal gratification and was not party to the fraud. It. Was held in 1988 SCM R 691 that a single slip or lapse, if any, on the part of a Government servant with a consistently good record would not invariably justify inference of his being inefficient. It was held in 2000 PLG (C.S) 1053 that single instance of any incorrect behaviour of individuals in any discipline whatsoever could hardly furnish a ground for holding those civil servants guilty of extreme incompetency-Civil Servant was Patwari and mutation of state land was entered by him in favour of private person on the basis of transfer order issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner-Departmental proceedings .Were initiated against the civil servant for making that entry and he was dismissed from service- Entry of the disputed mutation having been made- by the civil servant in performance of his duties in terms of mandate contained in Section 42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 could not be held to have been made by the civil servant in the performance of his official duties bona fide- -Dismissal order of civil servant and judgment of Service Tribunal were set aside. Civil servant was reinstated in service with back benefits.
13. In the light of above discussion, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 26.8.1999 and 13.1.2000. The appellant is reinstated in the service with back benefits. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due to the appellant.
14. There will be no order as to the costs.