1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(iii) In Form No. 1 Part C, he declared that on 22nd April, 1969, he had a bank balance of Rs.

840. In his reply to the questionnaire served by the Special Committee he stated that his bank balance on the said date was 1454/67. He also admitted a loan liability of Rs. 10,000 which on 21st April, 1969 he had obtained from his friend S. Saleem for the Purchase of shares of Daud Petroleum. In fact he had obtained Rs. 60,000 from United Bank Gujrat on 20th February 1969, for purchase of shares. Out of this amount he only invested Rs. 2,500 for the purchase of shares of the above firm and returned the rest to the Bank. Thus obviously there was no necessity for him to obtain in the loan, from Mr. Saleem, Manager of the Bank. It appears that the loan of Rs. 10,000 from Mr. Saleem was shown simply to reduce his actual bank balance of Rs. 10,

374. He has shown that from his agricultural property 'at Mianwali he was getting an Income of Rs. 6,000 per annum whereas according to the revenue record his approximate net income from this Property was only Rs. 2,800. (iii) Inference is drawn from the opinion of the people who have come in contact with him.

4. Apart from the merits the main contentions of the appellant were: ‑ (i) Charges did not fall within the purview of M. L. R. 58 and therefore the order of the respondent was in excess of Jurisdiction and a nullity in law. (ii) Appellant was not given reasonable and fair opportunity by non‑disclosure of facts, evidence or material on which the charge‑sheet and statement of allegations were based. More over he could not cross‑examine the witnesses who might have deposed against him. Therefore hearing by the Tribunal violated principles of natural justice and the statutory pro visions of M. L, R. 58. (iii) He could not be charged for the second time in respect of matters mentioned in the declaration made before the Special Committee.

5. We have considered the main contentions of the appellant but find no force in these objections. Whatever was done by the Tribunal was in accordance with the provisions of M. L. R.

58. Moreover there could be no objection to the charges regarding assets being referred to the Tribunal under M. L. R. 58 even if they had been scrutinized by the Special Committee set up under the Ordinance of 1969. 6. (i) It was held by the Tribunal that Charge No. (i) was not proved against the appellant. (ii) As regards charge No. (ii) the allegations are in three Parts :‑ (a) The first allegation is that the appellant wilfully gave incorrect information as in Form No. 1 Part C he declared that his bank balance was Rs. 840 on 22nd April, 1969 but in reply to the questionaire served by the Special Committee he submitted that the bank balance on the said date was Rs. 1454/67. The contention of the appellant is that the figures communicated by him in the first instance were on the basis of a certificate given by the Bank, which indicated a debit balance of Rs. 2658 on 21st April, 1969. Later on it was found out to be incorrect and when it came to his notice, he himself corrected the figures. The Bank indicated that they had inadvertently Mentioned the amount of the balance as on 21st May, 1969 instead of 21st April 1969. Thus the mistake in Form I, Part C was due to the incorrect certificate supplied by the Bank The contention of the Government is that it was the bad and dishonest intention of the appellant that led him to give incorrect figure and that he had communicated the incorrect the figure in his own interest. It is not proved that the figures communicated by the Bank, in the first instance, were incorrectly given at the behest of the appellant in order to benefit him. This Part of the charge is ‑ not proved against the appellant. (b) The second part of the charge is that there was no need for the appellant to obtain a loan of Rs. 10.000 from Mr. Saleem when the Bank allowed him an overdraft of Rs. 60,000 and this was done in order to reduce his actual bank balance of Rs. 10,

374. The appellant has contended that all the transac tions took place before his suspension and are duly docu mented in the Bank. It was necessary for the appellant to obtain a loan of Rs. 10,000 from Mr. Saleem plus Rs. 12,830. 13 in order to get an overdraft of Rs. 37,159,87 from the Bank in order to make a total of Rs. 60,000 which he requir ed for investment in shares. He actually applied for shares worth Rs.60,000 but was allotted shares amounting to Rs. 2,500 only. In view of the small number of shares allotted to him the loan was returned to Mian Saleem Akhtar. Since all the transactions were documented and not made with any bad intention no charge is made out against the appellant. (c) The third part of the charge is that he showed his income from agricultural property at Mianwali to be Rs. 60,000 per annum, whereas according to the Revenue record his net income from agricultural property at Mianwali was Rs. 2,800 only. This was income from 38 acres of land According to the appellant the Patwari who made the estimate of Rs. 2,800 did not belong to the relevant circle and the Patwari was not produced to give evidence so that he could have been cross -examined by the appellant. It is admitted by the Government that the 38 acres of agricultural land in Mianwali were canal irrigated. Moreover this income relates to the period prior to 1962 when the land was being looked after by the father of the appellant and the appellant was being paid a lump sum by his father. An income of Rs. 125 per year per acre is not a high or inflated figure in case land under canal irrigation. This part of the charge against the appellant is, therefore, not proved.

7. The third charge relates to tie reputation of the appellant as a corrupt officer. This inference has been drawn by the Government from the people who came in contact with the appellant. We have seen the record of the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant. Even those officers who have given adverse of lukewarm reports have not consider ed the reputation of the appellant to be corrupt. Government have also produced the Anti‑Corruption Establishment's files of the officer. Is April 1969 an enquiry was ordered against the officer of the allegations that he owned several squares of land in Mianwali, a palatial bruilding in Mianwali, shares worth lacs and is a debauch and a man of ill‑repute. The Anti‑Corruption Establishment carried out a detailed probe for more than eight months and could not find anything substantial against the officer, except the land referred to in charges under M L R 58 and the transaction for the purchase of shares. These two have been dis cussed in detail in paras. 6 (i) and para. 6 (iii) above and nothing., objectionable has been noticed in the conduct of the officer The general `t charge is not substantiated by any record or reputation, and is therefore not proved against the appellant.

7. On merits the appellant has been able to satisfy the Service "tribunal that none of the charges levied against him during M. L. R.‑58B proceedings are proved against the appellant. The appeal of Muhammad Aziz Ullah Khan Sumbal is therefore accepted. Appeal accepted.