P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Yusaf for Respondent. This is a revision petition preferred by Muhammad Ibrahim against the appointment of Ghulam Muhammad and Ali Ahmad as Lambardars of Chak No. 111 /D B, District Bahawalpur made by Collector of the District on 13‑10‑1954. The choice of the Collector was upheld by the learned Commissioner on The main ground that has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was a permanent Lambardar of the village and the appointment of the respondent made on the ground that he i. e., the petitioner was merely a temporary Lambardar thereby avoiding the necessary steps for his removal, was bad in law. This case was taken up by the revenue authorities on the plea of making a permanent appoint ment, as it was assumed that the petitioner was holding the post temporarily. Certain allegations were brought against the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself the two permanent appointments were made by the Collector. On going through the record of the case I find that the petitioner was appointed a permanent Lambardar in this village in 1943, by the Collector but was placed on probation for a period of one year and he was required during this period to increase his holding to one square. Three years later in 1946, he was removed for having acted in a reprehensible manner in respect of cloth supplies, but on representations made to the Collector he was reinstated. The order of reinstatement however is somewhat an emulous in character, as it speaks of restoring the petitioner but at the same time in a temporary capacity. It is con‑tended on behalf of petitioner that this order was passed on a misrepresenta tion of facts by the officials who had reported that Muhammad Ibrahim was only a temporary Lambardar, which was contrary to facts. A perusal of the record indicate that this contention is correct. The question in these circumstances is whether the restoration of the petitioner should be considered temporary in character. Even the order passed by the learned Collector is in abbreviated form and runs as follows:‑ "He may be restored as T. L. with a severe warning." There is no copy of the order which issued from the Collector's office to indicate what the status of the petitioner was. I am inclined to the view that in these circumstances his restoration should not be considered as temporary in character. As a matter of fact it would be not in the interest of good administration to continue a temporary appointment for such a long period; if the local officers had any complaints and thought that the Lambardar had not acted satisfactorily during the period of probation they should have removed him from the post. Having held that the appointment of the petitioner is to be considered permanent, the action which has been taken to remove him without giving him an opportunity of being heard is bad in law. Even if the appointment were considered temporary in character but. as it had extended over such a long period it would have been in the interest of good administration to give an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. This admittedly had not been done. I would, therefore, accept the application and direct the Collector to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner who should be treated as a permanent Lambardar and then come to a fresh decision on merits. The second appointment of Ali Ahmad is not to be disturbed. K. M. A. Case remanded.