1989SCMR570 (PLP)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 2‑5‑1982 of Sind Service Tribunal, Karachi, whereby appeal No.ll/1977 of the appellant against his dismissal order dated 4‑11‑1975, from service, by respondent No.l and subsequent confirmation of the said order by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 vide their orders dated 2‑2‑1977 and 5‑11‑1977 respectively, was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The appellant was appointed as Sub‑Registrar in Grade 9 and posted as Sub‑Registrar, Sub‑District No.VI, Karachi on 13‑2‑1975. A lease deed was presented to the appellant on 3‑5‑1975 for registration. Although the lease property was situated outside the jurisdiction of the appellant but according to him the property offered as surety for the main transaction was shown to have been situated within the jurisdiction of the appellant. On 13‑5‑1975 the District Registrar, Karachi sent a letter No.501/DR/75 dated 13‑5‑1975 along with an extract of a complaint to the appellant in which certain allegations were leveled against him. The appellant submitted his reply on 20‑5‑1975, denying all the allegations mentioned in the said letter of the District Registrar. The appellant was suspended by the respondent No.l vide his order No.588/IGR/75 dated 5‑6‑1975 and Additional Commissioner, Karachi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the allegations against the appellant. Subsequently, a charge‑sheet No.167/DR/75 dated 10‑6‑1975, containing the following charges was served on the appellant by the District Registrar being an authorized officer;‑ "(1) That while posted as Sub‑Registrar, T.Division No.VI, Karachi, he illegally and dishonestly accepted and registered knowingly a lease deed as No. 1451 at pages 14 to 22, Volume 27 of Book No.l‑Addl. dated 3‑5‑1975 executed by Mr. G.M. Joseph as Lessor in favour of Hawker Settlers through its partners (1) G.M. Joseph son of Rev Ganda Mal, (2) Khalil Ahmad Khan son of Muhammad Ibrahim, (3) Mir Riasat Ali son of Mir Chiragh Ali and (4) Muhammad Arshad Malik son of Muhammad Aslam Malik as Lessee in respect of property bearing No.3 sheet P.C.7, Ranchore Quarters, Karachi belonging to the Government while he had no jurisdiction to register the said document. (2) That he dishonestly and knowingly permitted the insertion of Plot No. 25 Sheet K‑26 measuring 9 Acres 3,000 sq. yards belonging to Government in Trans Lyari area, Karachi, and a surety in the said lease deed which was beyond his jurisdiction. (3) That he took personal interest and steps in order to register the said lease deed and accepted the same after office hours on 3rd May, 1975 and prepared Registration Fee Receipt and made other entries with his own hand writing to show favour to the parties. He knowingly made false entries of the presentation time between the hours of 10 and 11 a.m. on 3‑5‑1975 in the presentation endorsement on the said document. (4) That he is therefore guilty of illegal registration of the said lease deed thereby granting lease of the Government valuable lands mentioned above to the said lessees for monetary consideration." On 25‑6‑1975 the appellant submitted his explanation to the abovementioned charge‑sheet, denying all the allegations mentioned therein. However, the explanation of the appellant was found unsatisfactory and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 5‑9‑1975 to respondent No.l, stating therein "I find all the allegations mentioned in the charge‑sheet proved against the accused officer". The respondent No.l vide his order dated 4‑11‑1975 found the appellant guilty of all the charges and without giving any show‑cause notice, dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant filed appeal against the said order before respondent No.2 who vide his order dated 2‑2‑1977 upheld the dismissal order of the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved filed appeal against the order dated 2‑2‑1977 before the Service Tribunal Sind at Karachi. The learned Chairman and Member of the Tribunal vide their judgment dated 5‑11‑1977 dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant filed petition for leave to appeal in this Court against the judgment dated 5‑11‑1977 of the Service Tribunal. A learned Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11‑8‑79 granted leave on the point to examine the effect of Rule 135 of West Pakistan Registration Rules 1929 about the allegations levelled against the appellant as that provision was not considered by the Service Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer and the Competent Authority, ordering the dismissal of the appellant. Finally, the appeal of the appellant was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 31‑1‑1982 and the case was remanded to the Service Tribunal Sind for reconsideration in the light of the direction of this Court. The learned Service Tribunal Sind after re‑examination of the appeal dismissed the same vide its judgment dated 2‑5‑1982. Thereupon the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court and leave was granted to the appellant vide its order dated 8th December, 1982. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the relevant documents and have considered the relevant provisions of law in the light of the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. This case previously came up before this Court being Civil Appeal No.63‑K of 1979 which was allowed in favour of the appellant vide judgment dated 31‑1‑82 and remanded to the !earned Service Tribunal Sind for fresh hearing in the: light of certain observations madt regarding the effect of Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1963 as amended on 28th August, 1975. The learned Tribunal heard the case of the appellant afresh and held that the Notification dated 19‑11‑1973 by which the officer competent to appoint any civil servant for the purpose of the said Rules continued to be valid and in force, in spite of the amendment of sub‑rule (2) of Rule 2 and dismissed the appeal of the appellant by the impugned judgment. The learned Tribunal while giving its finding completely disregarded the principle laid down by this Court in "Zarar Khan v. Government of Sind and others P L D 1980 S C 310" and the direction of this Court at the time of remanding this case to the Service Tribunal for re‑examination in the light of its direction. The point involved in the above‑mentioned case of Zarar Khan v. Government of Sind and others was that he was recruited as an A.S.1. on 16‑3‑65, then he was promoted as Sub‑Inspector and remained as S.H.O. in a few Police Stations. As a result of a few departmental inquiries, he was suspended by the Govt. on 17‑5‑

74. The D.I.‑G. sent him a show‑cause notice on 26‑11‑

74. The Chief Minister in his capacity as the "Authority" issued his compulsory retirement orders on 7‑4‑

75. The appellant Zarar Khan went in appeal to the Supreme Court which was allowed on the point that the powers of the "Authority" were exercised by the Chief Minister on 7‑4‑75 when he (the Chief Minister) prior to repeal and re‑enactment of Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973 on 21‑8‑75, was not empowered to pass the order in question on the relevant date. While in the present case the Inspector General Registration and Commissioner in spite of repeal and re‑enactment of Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973, on 28‑8‑1975, passed the dismissal order of the appellant on 4‑11‑1975 when he was no more empowered to pass such order after the repeal and re‑enactment of Rul ,s2(2) on 28‑8‑75 n e Chief Minister had become the "Authority". The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Tribunal has failed to decide the appeal of the appellant on merit by leaving the basic point involved in the case of the appellant being unresolved. He urged that in pursuance of the Notification dated 19th October, 1973 issued under Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 the I.G. Registration and Commissioner has acted as "Authority" but Rule 2(2) had since been repealed and re‑enacted on 28th August, 1975 and instead of the `Government' the 'Chief Minister' or any Officer or Authority designated by him, had to exercise the powers of the "Authority". As the Chief Minister had not delegated the powers, of the "Authority" to any other officer, in terms of the amendment this power could not be exercised by the I.G. Registration and Commissioner. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to rebut this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. After a thorough and careful determination of this point, we therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to Rule 135 of the West Pakistan Registration Rules, 1929 which reads as under:‑‑ "

135. Registering Officers not concerned with validity of documents.‑‑ Registering officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration, and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as the following, e.g. that the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him, or that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transaction, or that the transaction was fraudulent or opposed to public policy. These and similar matters are for decision, if necessary by competent Courts of law and registering officers as such have nothing to do with them. If the document is presented in proper manner by a competent person at the proper office within the time allowed by law, and if the registering officer is satisfied that the alleged executant is the person he presents himself to be, and if such person admits execution, the registering officer.' bo d to register the document with regard to its possible effects."` In the light of the above discussion our own assessment about this matter is that the order of dismissal of the appellant was issued b the respondent No.l on the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer on 4‑11‑1975 when the Notification dated 19th October, 1973 issued under Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, under which respondent No.l had acted as an "Authority", was repealed and re‑enacted on 28‑8- 1975 in which the word "Government" was substituted by "Chief Minister" or any officer or C authority designated by biro. So by virtue of the repeal and re‑enactment of Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, the exact definition of the "Authority" is the `Chief Minister'. As such it is obvious that on the relevant date i.e. 4‑11‑1975 the I.G. Registration and Commissioner (respondent No.l) was not empowered to pass the dismissal order of the appellant. As far as the allegation against the appellant about the illegal registration of a lease deed is concerned, the law is very clear on this subject. Rule 135 of the West Pakistan Registration Rules 1929 as reproduced above, goes in favour of the appellant. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the order of dismissal of the appellant passed by the respondent No. l on 4‑11‑1975 is illegal and the impugned order of the Sind Service Tribunal, dismissing the appeal of the appellant is not based on proper consideration of the relevant rules, The result is that this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment E dated 2‑5‑1982 of the Sind Service Tribunal and the order of dismissal dated 4‑11 1975 of the appellant by respondent No. l are set aside with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./A‑376/S Appeal allowed.