1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(4) That he put Muhammad Ismail s/o Mehdi Khan to loss for his own personal benefit and in this way committed fraud, dishonesty and coercion. Muhammad Ramzan Mirza, Resident Magistrate, Burewala was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire the charges. He examined seven P. Ws in all vide his enquiry report dated 29th October, 1978 and reported that all the charges against the appellant stood proved. However, according to him, Charge No. 2 needed definite opinion from the handwriting expert. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report the Collector/A. C. Burewala served the appellant with a show cause notice and he was also beard in person. The present appellant took up the position before the Collector, Burewala that the dispute between Mohammad Ismail s/o Mehdi Khan and Nur Mohammad s/o Ahmada, caste Langerial was sub judice before the Civil Court. Thus it was improper for the Collector to embark upon any findings in this behalf. As regards the purchase of 141 marlas of land by the appellant through a registered deed dated 21st October, 1975 for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/‑ in his own Halqa, he submitted that according to Notification No. S O‑R I (S&GAD) 1‑10/66 (XIII), dated 10th January, 1970 the appellant was not required to obtain any prior permission from the competent authority before the purchase of the land in question. He submitted that the West Pak: Govt. Servants (Conduct) Rules. 1966, as amended from time to time, did not require him to take any such prior permission or to inform the authority concerned in this regard. He also submitted that the provision of para 3.24 of the Land Records Manual stood superseded by the aforesaid Conduct Rules. The Collector, however, did not accept the contention of the appellant and vide his order dated 4th March, 1978 directed his compulsory retirement under the E & D Rules, 1975. The appeal dated 12th March, 1978 preferred by the appellant to the Commissioner, Multan Division was also rejected on 21st May, 1979 holding that there was no good ground to interfere with the orders of Collector, Burewala. The present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 21st July, 1980 in which he raised the following two contentions :‑ (1) that the provisions of Land Records Manual did not have the efficacy of statutory rules and the violation of the same did not amount to misconduct. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the judgment of this Tribunal reported in Mohammad Rashid v. Collector (NLR 1980 T D 202) which reads as under :‑ "It may be observed that ‑the Land Records Manual was compiled somewhere in 1934 to replace the standing order issued by the then Financial Commissioners from time to time. Thus the Land Records Manual contained instructions for the guidance of the Revenue Officers which though useful could not be equated with rules as the same were never issued by the rule‑making authority." (2) that in any case the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1966 had to prevail which was later in time and did not prescribe any such condition. The appellant also relied upon the following extract from the S&GAD's letter dated 10th January, 1970 :‑ (1) Under the old rule 11, a Govt. servant was required to obtain prior permission of the Govt. for transacting any purchase, sale, or disposal of movable or immovable property exceeding in value Rs. 5,000 but the term "property" was not defined. Under the amended rule, this term has been defined to include agricultural and urban lands, bonds, shares and securities. (2) There was no provision in the Rules requiring prior permission of the Govt. for construction of houses, etc. Under the new rule 11‑A, a Govt. Servant is required to obtain permission of the Government for constructing any building, whether intended to be used for residential or commercial purposes. While applying for permission the Govt. servant shall have to disclose the sources from which the cost of such construction will be met: We are afraid that we cannot accept any of the above contentions of the appellant. So far as the first contention is concerned it overlooks the provisions contained in Rule 32 of the 1966 Rules which is to the following effect :‑‑

32. Rules not to be in derogation of arty law, etc. ‑Nothing in these rules shall derogate from the provisions of any law, or of any order of any competent authority, for the time being in force, relating to the conduct of Govt. servants." In our view the expression any order of any competent authority for the time being in force", clearly relates to the instructions of the type contained in Land Records Manual, paragraph 3.24. In fact Rule 32 reproduced above lent statutory legitimacy to paragraph 3.24. There is nothing in Rule No. 11 or 11‑A of 1966 Rules to negate the contents of paragraph 3.24 above. The two provisions can stand together and in fact, are quite consistent and supplementary to each other. Similarly, the letter dated 10th January, 1970 related to entirely different situation and the same could not be pressed into service to reduce paragraph 3.24 of the Land Records Manual to a dead letter. The letter in question related to 1966 Rules as such. But in view of our finding with regard to the existence and application of para. 3.24 which was a special provision applicable to the patwaris, the said letter did not have any relevance. In fact it did not purport to cover the case of a patwari. We, therefore, find little merit in this contention of the appellant as well. Since the charge of misconduct is clearly proved against the appellant, therefore, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.