1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑R. 6 (3)‑Show‑cause notice‑Patwari charged for making fictitious mutation‑Preliminary inquiry held after obtaining his explanation Dismissal order passed after show‑cause notice and personal hearing before competent authority‑Record indicating facts of forgery, manipulation and interpolation explicitly proved‑‑Interference, in of circumstances, refused by Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.

4. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Muhammad Din Ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 12‑10‑1981 passed by the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue. Punjab whereby he upheld the order dated 15‑7‑1980 of A.C., Gulranwala dismissing the appellant from service.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he maybe re‑instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of report dated 20‑2‑1980 of M. Inayatullah Patwari Circle Gharjak endorsed by the Field Kanungo and the Tehsildar, Gujranwala, against the appellant an enquiry was taken in hand. The crux of the matter was that Muhammad Din Patwari who was posted at Circle Gharjak entered a wrong mutation and against the record entered a Fard Badar No. 92 of village Gharjak which was verified by Shah Nawaz Field Kanungo and sanctioned by Mr. M. A. Niazi, Naib- Tehsildar/A.C. 11 without assigning any date. By virtue of this report a fictitious, mutation No. 11359 was incorporated. The order dated 3‑3‑1970 was a4o alleged to have been forged. It was also further stated that no basis for entry of said mutation was also given into that document. Even column No. 13 did not disclose the number of registered deed. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Assistant Commissioner in which the appellant submitted his written reply, dated 19‑5‑1980 by submitting that said act was done at the instance of Mohammad Ali Patwari who came alongwith a fellow and introduced him as Gulrez Hussain. He also said that M. Muhammad Ali Patwari took out Mutation No. 11359 from the Register of Mutations and at his request he prepared the Fard Badar which was recommended by the Field Kanungo and later on sanctioned by the Revenue Officer. The Assistant Commissioner after giving personal hearing dismissed him from service on 15‑7‑1980. He filed an appeal against the dismissal order before Mr. Omar Khan Afridi Commissioner, Lahore Division Lahore who rejected the same on 22‑11‑1980. The matter did not rest there as the appellant filed a revision before the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab; Lahore who also rejected the same vide order dated 12‑10‑1981. We have gone through all the impugned orders and have also perused the record of this case. Although the case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing and we have taken into consideration the parawise comments which have been filed by the Department. What we found from the record and the history of the case is that the facts of the forgery, manipulation and interpolation have been explicitly' proved and it cannot be said that Patwari was only a tool in the hand of his colleague Mohammad Ali. The facts remain the only Parat Patwar of said mutation was pasted on the front page of volume No. 127 of Mutation Register of Village Gharjak. It is also on record that no Khewat or Khatoni number had been entered on this mutation and the signatures of M. Muhammad Malik Patwari and Arther Paul, Field Kanurigo have also been forged. Even the order dated 3‑3‑1970 on behalf of the Revenue Officer had been forged. We have examined the column 13 of the mutation and find that number of registered deed had not been given and definite date of sale money is mentioned therein. We also note that the mutation in question had been actually decided on 3‑3‑1970, therefore it should have been incorporated in the Register Haqdaran Zamin. It was also only after getting of Fard Badar sanctioned by, the said official that the Amaldaramad of this false and fictitious mutation had been made in the revenue record. After getting this wrong and illegal Fard Badar sanctioned M. Mohammad Din, appellant incorporated the Amaldaramad of fictitious mutation in the Register Haqdaran Zamin of village Gharjak for the year 1974‑75 by which 43 kanals and 14 marlas of Central Government land was fraudulently transferred in the name of Gulrez Hussain a fake person knowingly. We have fully perused all the impugned judgments and are satisfied that the learned Assistant Commissioner, learned Commissioner, Lahore Division and learned Member, Board of Revenue have dealt with each and every aspects of the case in a most lucid manner. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The result is we dismiss the appeal in limine. Appeal dismissed.