' Appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against order dated 26-8-1989 vide which the appellant was dismissed from service.
1. Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that on the receipt of complaint of Muhammad Qasim and 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 Jilal Din, Muhammad Siddique, Barket Ali and Nawah, u 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 Chak No,51/DB Yazman for 100 Kanals in favour of Jilal Din son of Meeran Bakhsh Caste Jat.
(2) From Chak No,98/DNB to Chak No,5I/DB for 100 Kanals in favour of Muhammad Siddique son of Sardar Khan Caste Jat.
(3) From Cahk No,190/Murad to Chak No,51/DB for 100 Kanals in favour of Barkat Ali son of Muhammad Caste Arain.
(4) From Chak No,98/DNB to Chak No,51/DB for 99 Kanals, 2 Marlas in favour of Nawab son of 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 Mutation 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 Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)' Rules, because he sanctioned the said Mutations.
3. Assistant Commissioner Yazman, the Inquiry Officer An 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 tile 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. 1 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 his recommendations nor authority has 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 of 7 years and the appellant failed 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 section 42 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and para.4.7 Land Record Manual, the Mutation is entered by the Patwari, attested by the Kanungo and sanctioned by the Revenue Officer. The Mutation once entered is to be decided by the Revenue Officer. Rejection of the Mutations on the basis that the order on which the Mutation is entered is old, is no 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 SCMR 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 E Government dues. It is not a titled deed (1985 CLC 89).
10. The alleged forgery according to the findings of the Inquiry Officer was committed by the officials of Colony Branch of D.C. Office. Mutation 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 under-section 161 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. The order of sanctioning the mutations is open to review under section 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 received no illegal gratification and was not party to the fraud. It was held in 1988 SCMR 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 PLC (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--Department 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 the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 could not but be held to have been made by the civil servant in the performance of his official duties boua 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 re-instated 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.