1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(1) That while posted as Land Acquisition Clerk you were dealing with the payment of compensation amount to the land owners whose lands were acquired for the extension of Multan Aerodrome, land belonging to Malik Wahid Bukhsh son of Isa situated in Village Khor Sajri Wahan was also acquired alongwith other owners of land in connection with the extension of Aerodrome. Two amounts of Rs. 4,397.25 and Rs. 13.999.26 on account of compensation for the land of said Malik Wahid Bakhsh were lying in the Government Treasury under Revenue Deposit for payment to the owner. Out of these two amounts, a refund voucher for the heavy amount of Rs. 13,999.26 was prepared by you and handed over to an unauthorised person, despite the fact that the actual land owner i.e. Malik Wahid Bakhsh had died in the year 1963. This embezzlement/fraud was committed with your connivance because the deceased Wahid Bakhsh was a big transporter and prominent social figure of Multan and none could dare to depose himself as said Malik Wahid Bakhsh without your connivance. Accordingly, a criminal case under section 409/420, P. P. C. was registered against you and your co-accused with the Police. (2) By reason of the above, you appear to be‑ (a) inefficient within the meanings of rule 3 (a), (b) corrupt within the meaning of rule 3 (c) of the Punjab Civil Servants' E. & D. Rules, 1975, and as such are liable to dis ciplinary action under rule 4 of the Rules ibid which may include imposition of one or more penalties prescribed by the said rules. On 15th October, 1978, Sardar Azam Khan, Special Railway Magis trate, Multan, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. He examined four witnesses including M. Akram, Head Clerk, D. C.'s Office, Mr. Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din (an employee of Malik Karim Bakhsh) and Malik Karim Bakhsh son of Wahid Bakhsh. He also examined three defence witnesses produced by the appellant. The Enquiry Officer, vide his report, held that the charges of corruption against the appellant stood proved. After the receipt of the Enquiry Report, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 21st March, 1978 for a major penalty. The appellant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice on 29th March, 1978 and was also granted personal hearing on 29th, April, 1979 by the D. C., Multan who dismissed the appellant from service on 20th May, 1978. The appellant pointed out that in this case, the land measuring 3 kanals and 8 marlas belonging to late Wahid Bakhsh was acquired in 1974 under the Land Acquisition Act for the extension of Multan Airport in lieu of which compensation amounting to Rs. 13,999.56 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, Multan. On 21st July, 1976, one M. Aslam claiming to be the brother of one M. Riaz produced a power of attorney allegedly executed by Wahid Bakhsh in favour of M. Riaz which was registered at Bahawalpur. The very next day i.e. on 22nd July, 1976 one Shah Muhammad filed an application warning that the power of attorney produced ‑by M. Aslam should not be acted upon and may be got verified. The Land Acquisition Collector, Multan, ordered that the power of attorney produced by said M. Aslam be got verified and the real owner alongwith landlords of the area be asked to appear to identify the appel lant. On 30th July, 1976 one Wahid Bakhsh appeared in person and filed an application to the Land Acquisition Collector (Annexure 'E' to this appeal and requested for the payment of the compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, directed that his identity may be got verified by the Lambardar. On 23rd August, 1979, Wahid Bakhsh pro duced a certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Multan, to the effect that Pir Bakhsh, the concerned Lambardar, had already expired. On the produc tion of the above certificate, the L. A. C. ordered on 24th August, 1979 that Wahid Bakhsh may be asked to produce some joint owner in the Khata with his identity card and passport. 1n compliance of the above order, Wahid Bakhsh on 16th September, 1976 produced one Taj Muhammad on whose verification the L. A. C. on 16th September, 1976 passed the order for the payment of Rs. 13,999.26 in favour of Wahid Bakhsh. After the receipt of the payment, an account was opened in a local National Bank of Multan on 18th September, 1976 where from the said Wahid Bakhsh withdrew the entire amount on the same day leaving a paltry balance. Thus it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that all possible precautions had been taken by the appellant in obtaining the orders by the competent authority i.e. L. A. C., Multan, and as such he could not be considered to be at fault. Under the circumstances, he pressed for acceptance of this appeal. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, pointed out that the Enquiry Officer has examined four witnesses produced by the Depart ment in support of the charges against the appellant. Muhammad Akram, Head Clerk D. C. Office, Multan, P. W. I proved the presence of Malik Karim Bakhsh in the Office and he also proved that Malik Karim Bakhsh and the appellant were engaged in a dispute. One Ghulam Mohy ud‑Din, an employee of Karim Bakhsh, stated that he contacted the appellant in compensation case who admitted his fault. According to him, the appellant asked for pardon. It was stated by Malik Karim Bakhsh that Wahid Bakhsh, his father, had died in 1963. He contacted appellant in his office before the payment of compensation but, he was asked to produce a succession certificate. The difficulty in obtaining the succession certificate was explained to appellant whereupon he suggested to produce any old person in the name of Wahid Bakhsh and he will facilitate the payment provided his palm was greased. On the strength of the above, the Government Pleader argued that in fact the appellant had himself suggested the same process for the release of the payment and it was precisely on the same basis that the payment had been relea sed. Thus his complaint was strongly established. He also suggested that the appellant failed to perform his duties properly in assisting the L. A. C. In roper manner. According to him, the appellant is very experienced official having a long record of service to his credit. The Government Pleader thus submitted that the appeal be rejected. In reply, the learned counsel for appellant argued that Karim Bakhsh was not a witness of truth and he, in fact, never contacted the appellant and that Ghulam Mohy‑ud‑Din P. W. was Karim Bakhsh employee. After careful consideration of the case, we regret our inability to accept any of the pleas advanced by the appellant. Firstly, the power of attorney presented by one Aslam, allegedly the brother of Riaz (the so -called attorney of Wahid Bux) smacked of an abnormal transaction. Mr. Riaz had purportedly been appointed as attorney by Wahid Bakhsh in respect of landed property situate at Multan or to receive compensation in lieu thereof. Thus the very fact of the registration of power of attorney at Bahawalpur should have been good enough to put the appellant on his guard. The appellant, evidently failed to point out this aspect of the matter. It was all the more necessary in face of a written complaint by one Shah Muhammad alleging that the power of attorney was not a clean transaction. The contention of the appellant that Malik Karim Bakhsh was not a witness of truth also appeared to be a mere bold assertion. He had the opportunity to cross‑examine the witness but he never suggested any motive to the witness for making the statement against him. In fact, the meeting of the witness with the appellant is established by the evidence of Muhammad Akram (Head Clerk of L. A. C.'s Office) against whose testy-money the appellant had hardly anything to say. The circumstance commend to us to believe that Malik Karim Bux contacted the appellant before the actual payment of compensation and the incident did take place as stated by the witness. After believing the version put forth by Malik Karim Bux the appellant is left with no case. We also find consi derable credibility in the suggestion that the payment bad been released in the precise manner as suggested by the appellant to Malik Karim Bux. Thus his complicity is amply proved. In any event, he was inefficient as he failed to point out that normally the power of attorney should have been got registered at Multan where the parties resided and where the property was situated. Consequently, the appeal had little force and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The parties be informed. '