' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).---Mr. Bilal Shaheen son of Aqleem Akhtar alias General Rani, resident of Garden Town, Lahore, applied for allotment of a plot measuring 10 Kanals, situate within the Revenue estate of Hardoo Khot, Tehsil Kamonki, District Gujranwala, for installation of a petrol pump. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, forwarded his application to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, for report on 26-7-1995. The Deputy Commissioner (appellant before us) processed the entire case within a day and on 26-7-1995 submitted his report and recommended the lease on a total rent of Rs,5,000 per acre. Somehow or the other, agreement of the Board of Revenue was also procured and the allotment was made in the name of the applicant. Subsequently, it transpired that there was something fishy in the deal and the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, had misconducted himself.
2. There was another accusation against the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala that he alongwith the S.S.P. Gujranwala illegally entered the Gulistan Cinema, G.T. Road, Gujranwala and in pursuance of his orders, one Waris Khan was beaten by the state functionaries which resulted in his death.
3. The authority i,e, the Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, appointed Mr. Abdul Rasheed Khan, Secretary, Communication and Works, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as Authorised Officer who further deputed Mr. Shahid Khan, Director-General, L.D.A., to hold a regular inquiry. Following two charges were levelled against the Deputy Cor-missioner, Gujranwala:-- "(i) That Sh. Javed Sarwar (Exh.-PCS/BS-18) while posted as Deputy Commissioner, in violation of policy of the Government and directions of the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, contained in his letter dated 24-1-1995, was instrumental in allotment of a valuable plot of land measuring 10 Kanals situated at Hardo Khot, Tehsil Kamonki, District Gujranwala, belonging to Highways Department, Government of the Punjab, to one Mr. Muhammad Bilal Shaheen son of Aqleem Akhtar Rani alias General Rani, R/o Garden Town, Lahore, for installation of a petrol pump at a nominal price of Rs,6,250, on 99 years lease, whereas market value of piece of land was said to be over 1.5 million:
(ii) It came to the notice of the Government through the complaint of Mr. Muhammad Hayat Alvi son of Khuda Bakhsh Alvi, resident of 46, Wahdat Colony, Gujranwala that at the occasion of 'wheel jam strike' on call given by opposition on 11-10-1994, Sh. Javed Sarwar, the then Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala entered the premises of Gulistan Cinema, Gujranwala and under his axplicit orders one Imtiaz Chattha, bodyguard of S.S.P. Gujranwala, gave severe, beating to one Muhammad Waris, who died as a result of injuries sustained by him. It is also alleged that he himself subjected the innocent citizens to physical torture during this strike, by overstepping his authority and abusing his official position. These acts on his part are unbecoming of a public servant."
' After a detailed and exhaustive inquiry, the Inquiry Officer reported that charge No,2 had not been established. As for the first charge, he came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to substantiate the charge against the appellant and consequently, the competent authority imposed the penalty of dismissal against him.
4. The appellant has assailed the order dated 9-1-1998 mainly on the ground that he had played no part in the allotment of plot of land in favour Mr. Bilal Shaheen and the accusation against him did not amount to misconduct.
5. The averments made in the Memo. Of Appeal have been refuted by the respondents claiming, inter alia, that thorough inquiry had been held against him in which as many as 15 witnesses had been examined by the prosecution and it had been proved to the hilt that it was he who was mainly instrumental in the allotment of. The aforesaid piece of land in favour of the applicant Bilal Shaheen.
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
7. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had not played any role in the allotment of the plot. The only part which can be attributed to him was that he had replied to the query made by the Board of Revenue regarding fixation of rent of land proposed to be allotted to Bilal Shaheen.
This was a bona fide exercise in the performance of official duties of the appellant and could not have been used against him as ground for imposing penalty under E & D Rules.
8. It is noteworthy that the appellant has failed to attribute any ire, ill-will or personal grudge either to the Inquiry Officer, the Authorised Officer or to the Authority. The inquiry in this case had been conducted in a perfectly valid manner associating the appellant with it and providing him full chance to offer his defence.
9. An examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that the appellant was instrumental to the grant of lease for the following reasons:--
(i) that no NOC was obtained from the Highways Department to whom the plot in question belonged despite the suggestion made by Haji Muhammad Nazeer (P.W.15) in his office note;
(ii) that as against the market price of the plot as reported by Tehsildar Kamonki to be Rs,14 lacs, the A.C. Suo motu proposed rent at the rate of Rs,5,000 per acre per annum. This too was added afterwards in brackets in his forwarding report. Thereafter, it was overwritten with a different type- set that in a similar case, rent at the rate of Rs,15,000 per Kanal per annum was approved by the Board of Revenue but as the site in question was located far away from the urban area, the market rent at the rate of- Rs,5,000 would be reasonable. The word "Kanal" was found changed into "acre" and the overwriting was visible.
(iii) that Mr. Manzar Saeed, the then EAC (R) had obtained a report from Haji Nazeer DRA as per his wishes. Then Mr. Manzar Saeed simply initialled the same and submitted to the appellant. The word "Kanal" was again changed into "acre" and the rent at the rate of Rs,5,000 was reported to the Board of Revenue vide letter of the appellant dated 27-7-1995.
(iv) that undue haste was shown in processing the case, in that, entire process including calling for a report by the Board of Revenue on the application, reports of the field staff upto the D.C.
(appellant), reply of the appellant to the Board of Revenue and issue of sanction order by the Board of Revenue was completed within two days (26/27-7-1995).
(v) that the market rent/lease money recommended by the appellant at the rate of Rs,5,000 per acre per annum i,e, Rs, 6,250 per annum for ten Kanals in question, was shockingly low. In other words, the land worth around Rs,15 lacs was allotted at a rental of Rs,5,000 per acre per annum.
(vi) that with respect to another application, the appellant had reported the same rate of rent where Mr. Bilal Shaheen had sought allotment of 58 Kanals and 16 Marlas for pump-cum-truck station in Khasra No,979. Similarly, another application was recommended by the appellant at the same rate where Mr. Jamshaid Saeed b/o Manzar Saeed had sought allotment of 5 Kanals in the same Khasra for setting up a nursery farm. In the latter case, no report was ever called for by the Board of Revenue.
(vii) that earlier the Commissioner Gujranwala vide his letter dated 24-1-1995 had rejected the proposal of the appellant submitted with regard to the same land for allotment to the same applicant. The Commissioner had observed that the land belonged to the Highways Department and could not be allotted/leased out. It was also advised that no such case which on the face of it was intended to grab highly valuable Government lands should be initiated. The tenor of the letter of the Commissioner was admonitory and the appellant was directed to pay personal attention to such cases in future.
(viii) that according to the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue dated 11-10-1987, the maximum limit for lease of land in rural areas was only six Kanals. In the present case, 10 Kanals were recommended for lease in violation of the above instructions.
(ix) that special priority treatment was given by the appellant in processing the case in question overlooking the overwriting and the instructions of the Board of Revenue as also the directions of the Commissioner issued in this very case just five months before i,e, on 24-1-1995.
10. It is noteworthy that the precedent case cited by the "Authority" in the impugned order (which has been incorrectly reproduced by the appellant in the Memo. Of Appeal) showed that on an earlier occasion, the land was allotted for installation of petrol pump to Muhammad Ameen at the rate of Rs,15,000 per Kanal per annum and not Rs,5,000 per Kanal.
11. It was next argued by the appellant that by no stretch of any interpretation what has been attributed to the appellant, would amount to misconduct.
12. Let us advert to the definition of "misconduct" as given in the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975: 'misconduct' means conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline or contrary to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966, as applicable to the Province of Punjab or conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman and includes any act on the part of a civil servant to bring or attempt to bring political or other outside influence directly or indirectly to bear on the Governor, the Chief Minister, a Minister, or any Government Officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a Civil Servant."
13. Now . What has been reproduced above, would show that the appellant had proceeded with unholy haste in processing the entire case within a day. He received the letter from the Board of Revenue on 26-7-1995 and the entire exercise was completed the same day as if Patwari, Girdawar, Tehsildar, EAC (R) and all other connected officials were brought in one room and the exercise was accomplished in an unprecedented manner. This would clearly establish that whatever had been done by the appellant was surely not a conduct becoming of an officer of a Government. It may also be noted that the appellant had no royal prerogative to serve as a District Collector/Deputy Commissioner and it was not on the basis of divine right but a trust reposed in him. He was required to discharge this trust in accordance with rules which he failed to do. In this view of the matter, we feel that the first charge indeed stood proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
However, despite the above dismal picture, we cannot lose sight of the redeeming features providing room to think in favour of the appellant in the context of punishment. Firstly, the authorities in the Board of Revenue who had passed the allotment orders were also held responsible by the Inquiry Officer but no action appears to have been taken against any of them.
The allegation against the appellant was that he was instrumental to the allotment in question.
When the officers who had passed the allotment orders in the Board of Revenue were not proceeded against, the abettor (appellant) might not be awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal. Secondly, the possession of the land in question had not yet been delivered to the allottee when he himself had abandoned his rights arising from the said allotment. The C Authorized Officer had himself regarded this fact as a "redeeming feature" in favour of the appellant. It is evident that the Government did not suffer any loss on account of the abovesaid allotment. Thirdly, the appellant has a service-career extending over more than three decades and the present proceedings were perhaps the solitary instance where he was proceeded against under the disciplinary rules. It was held by a Division Bench of this very Tribunal (1993 PLC (CS) 1443) in the case of Mr. Akhtar Ali Monga who was incidentally. The Deputy Commissioner of the same District (Gujranwala) at the relevant tittle, that solitary aberration on the part of the civil servant during long period of service (26 years in that case) would be a redeeming feature. For this view, support was sought from the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court in 1988 SCM R 691. We, therefore, hold that in the circumstances of this case, penalty of compulsory retirement would have met the ends of justice.
14. As a result, we partly accept the appeal and alter the penalty of I dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.