1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAIZ KARIM, (MEMBER).‑‑ Appellant Muhammad Tufail, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded respondents as mentioned above.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the dismissal order, dated 8‑5‑1983 passed by respondent No.1, upholding order, dated 14‑3‑1983 of respondent No.2 be set aside with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Patwari in Halqa Naurangabad, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot. After the inquiry proceedings he received the dismissal order from the A.C./Collector, Shakargarh (respondent No.2). The appellant filed the appeal with respondent No. 1 which was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. The grounds for the appeal are that the original order of dismissal, dated 14‑3‑1983 passed by respondent No.2 was sketchy and non‑speaking order. The appellant further added that the enquiry was not conducted by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector himself and simply passed the order on the report of the Enquiry Officer and that too without hearing the appellant in person. The finding of the misconduct against the appellant was that he had lost Basta containing official revenue record. 5.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the relevant record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant repeated the grounds as mentioned in para. 4 above. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that all the legal formalities were conducted during the enquiry against the appellant. The dismissal order, dated 14‑3‑1983 is in detail and self‑speaking.

7. After careful consideration of the case and hearing the arguments of the parties we find that there is no dispute that the appellant lost Basta containing the official revenue record from his own custody. Now the point for determination is whether the loss amounts to corruption, inefficiency and negligence on the part of the appellant? In this regard no evidence or even appellant statement on the record shows that it was stolen from him or he lost it some manner beyond his control. There is nothing favourable to the appellant. His mere plea that he reconstructed some of the record does not absolve him from the charge of misconduct and inefficiency. Significantly enough in the grounds of appeal itself the appellant pleaded that he proclaimed in the mosque at Shakargarh and Roznamcha Waqiati and Shajra Parcha was made available by a 'police constable. This rather support the charges against the appellant that he had really lost the official record due to his irresponsibility and carelessness. There is no registration of the case of missing valuable record by the appellant in the police station. The impugned order, dated 8‑5‑1983 by respondent No. 1 has fully justified appellant's irresponsibility and inefficiency as well as misconduct while dismissing the appeal.

8. Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M.I. Appeal, dismissed.