P L D 1973 Lahore 92 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 19th April 1972. In connection with certain departmental proceedings against him, the petitioner Bashir Ahmad was charge‑sheeted by the Collector Gujrat on 10‑12‑1963 and it was directed that he should submit his reply to and appear before the Tehsildar who was being appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared before the Tehsildar and filed 'his reply denying the allegations. The Tehaildar held an enquiry and consequently compiled his report on 9‑11‑1964. The petitioner was then issued a show -cause notice on 29‑12‑1964 and a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was supplied to him. The petitioner submitted his reply and appeared before the Collector, who, not being satisfied about his explanation on 21‑5‑1965, passed an order dismissing him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was rejected by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi on 15‑2‑1966. The petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue but the same brought no fruit and he was told about its rejection by means of an endorsement dated 1‑9‑1967. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accusations which were served on the petitioner were as follows:‑ "(1) That on 24‑8‑1963 he issued copies of six Khatas of the jamabandi of 1957‑58 to Muhammad Hussain son of Muhammad Din of Mohala without making any entry in the Register of Copying Fee and the Roznamcha Waqiati and misappropriated the copying fee amounting to Rs. 2,25. (2) That on 4‑9‑63 he issued copies of two Khatas of the jamabandi of 1959‑60 to Hussain son of Allah Ditta of Tara Garh Kalan without making any entry in the Register of Copying Fee and the Roznamcha Waqfati and misappro priated the copying fee amount (sic) to .75. (3) That on 15‑9‑1963 he issued copies of four Khatas of jamabandi of 1961‑62 to Mian Khan son of Muhammad Alam of Mohalla without making any entry in the Register of Copying Fee and the Roznamcha Waqiad and misappro priated the copying fee amount (sic) to Rs. 1.50."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings in this case were not supported by evidence. For this purpose learned counsel read out before me from his own record statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, (1) Mian Khan, (2) Hussain son of Allah Ditta Caste Jat, (3) Hussain son of Allah Ditta Caste Jat Cheema and (4) Muhammad. Hussain son of Muhammad Din, and tried to argue that from their statement the accusations against the petitioner could not be held to have been proved. The question is merely of appreciation of evidence and simply because another point of view could also be advocated on the same evidence is no ground to declare the orders of the competent authorities as to be without lawful authority. From the evidence on the record, it has transpired that the copies of relevant public documents were prepared though the plea taken by the Patwari was that they were prepared by one Nasrullah son of the Chairman of the locality in whose house he was living at that time. Whether the copies were prepared by the petitioner himself or the aforesaid Nasrullah, does not minimize the offence against the petitioner so long as the record of the Patwari was made accessible to the said Nasrullah. I have no intention to reassess the evidence myself and the observation which I have hereinbefore made is simply for the purpose of showing that the overall circumstances of the case were such from which the view which the authorities had taken could also be taken and the finding of the said authorities cannot be said as not relatable to any evidence circumstantial or otherwise.

4. The next point argued was that in the order of the Collector an observation had been made that if the copies were prepared by the aforesaid Nasrullah, then the same reflected upon the negligence of the petitioner inasmuch as, he allowed the said Nasrullah to have access to the official record in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no specific accusation of negligence in the charge‑sheet and, therefore a finding of this nature could not have been given against him by the Collector while passing the order of dismissal. The contention again has no force. The observation of the Collector was with reference to the plea which was taken by the petitioner himself which in itself implied that another person bad an access to the public record which, otherwise, was supposed to be fn the custody of the Patwari. The comment of the Collector was on the plea taken by the petitioner himself and read in the context it simply brought home the accusation for which he had been particularly charged.

5. The last point argued was that the petitioner was not heard at the Revisional Stage by the Member, Board of Revenue while disposing of his revision petition. 1n this respect, he referred to para. 6, Appendix F of Chapter III of the Punjab Land Records Manual, where it was stated that cases to which the penalty of fine had been imposed could be summarily disposed of by the Appellate and Revisional Authority. From this the learned counsel concluded that the provisions herein before mentioned otherwise implied that cases in which penalties other than that of fine were imposed were not to be summarily disposed of and the delinquent official had a right of oral audience even in the revisional stage. I am afraid I cannot accept this proposition in the instant case. There is an inherent difference between an appeal and revision. The appeal is a continuation of proceedings and is a re‑examination of the matter afresh by the Appellate Court and from that point of view naturally if it is a statutory appeal it carries with it a right of oral audience regardless of the fact that the penalty imposed was merely of fine. So far as the revision is concerned, the position there, however, is different. Revision is simply an examination f of the matter for the purpose of seeing the propriety and legality of the orders of the subordinate authorities and it does not carry the same incidents which are peculiar to appeal. In that view of the matter, the order of the Board of Revenue cannot be declared to be without lawful authority merely on the ground that they did not afford an oral audience to the petitioner while disposing of his revision petition. It is significant to mention that in the revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue the petitioner had not claimed an oral audience.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.