1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Nazar Muhammad, ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 3rd July, 1983 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby order dated 8th January, 1983 passed by respondent No. 2, removing the appellant from service was confirmed. He has impleaded the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and the Assistant Commissioner, Sadar Sub‑Division Gujranwala, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that both the orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Patwari Halqa Saboki tehsil Gujranwala, in 1980. He carried the Girdawari for Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1982 in respect of Khasra Nos. 160, 161, 165, 166, 183, 186 and 187. The said land was owned by one Mst. Zarina Begum which was being cultivated by Muhammad Sharif son of Nawab. This situation was so maintained in the entries of Register Haqdaran-e-Zamin for 1975‑76 and 1979‑80 of village Saboki. It came to the notice of the authorities on the complaint of Muhammad Sharif that in collusion with Mst. Zarina Begum the appellant had changed the entries of the said Khasra Girdawari in favour of the allottee and has shown her in cultivating possession of the land instead of said Muhammad Sharif. After inquiry in connection with application for Sehat Girdawari, the entries were changed under the orders of the District Collector in favour of Muhammad Sharif and also a criminal case was registered against the appellant. The appellant was given a show‑cause notice and enquiry was dispensed with under rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and .Discipline Rules, 1975. The appellant was informed through the said notice that he was guilty of tampering with the revenue record and also of making interpolations in Purts Nos. 57 and 58, dated 17th October, 1981 in Register Girdawari and Roznamcha Waqiati. The learned Assistant Commissioner after going through the record of the case and hearing the Patwari found him guilty of the said allegations and ordered his removal from service with immediate effect. He filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, who vide his detailed order, dated 3rd July, 1983 upheld the orders of the learned Assistant Commissioner and also removed the name of the appel lant from the list of Patwari candidate. Hence this appeal. 4. We have he‑and the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the register Girdawari as well as Roznamcha Waqiati and other relevant record of this case with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not provided any opportunity of personal hearing and thus has been condemned without being heard. It has been further urged that the show‑cause notice contained charges of dishonesty and ulterior motives, therefore, inquiry was a must in this case and dispensing with the same, was an illegal act on the part of the respondents. It has been vehemently argued that the impugned orders were against the mandatory provisions of Anti‑Corruption Rules, 1974, which laid down that when a case has been registered against a civil servant, the matter had to be first referred to the Anti‑Corruption Committee and it was the said Committee which had to decide whether the inquiry against the appellant had to be conducted or not. With regard to the merits of the case learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was fully authorised to change the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, when it was found on the spot that the possession has changed hands and no mala fide could be attributed to him when a mention of the same had been made in the Roznamcha Waqiati. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the legal objection taken by the learned counsel for the appellant were misconceived as the competent authority was within its powers to dispense with the inquiry under rule 6(3) of the E & D Rules, 1975, when it was so found that the case against the appellant was based mainly on documentary evidence, therefore, the holding of inquiry would not be of any consequence. It was further urged that there was no bar to hold departmental proceed ings against a civil servant, when a criminal case had been registered against him. 7. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the appellant had no business to change the entries in Khasra Girdawari in the manner in which these have been changed. Once he himself had recorded Muhammad Sharif in cultivating possession and if he had to make any changes, then, he had to make a mention of the same in Roznamcha Waqiati at the relevant time when Girdawari was taken in hand. It has been forcefully argued that the entire matter was fully thrashed out by the Collector at the time when the matter was before him for Sehat Girdawari and documentary evidence on the record fully established that the appellant was guilty of tampering with the record as well as making interpolation with the same. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, who was competent authority in this case was fully empowered to use his discretion for dispensing with regular enquiry under rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, when be was so satisfied that the documentary evidence on the record was sufficient to hold the appellant guilty, With regard to the objection that once the case has been registered with the Department the competent authority was under obligation to refer the matter to the Anti‑Corruption Committee : it would be sufficient to say that the case was not registered with the Anti‑Corruption Establishment and was referred to the Police, therefore, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant would be of no avail to the appellant in this matter. The competent authority would be empowered to probe in the matter at his own, if he was of the opinion that it would take lone time in the conclusion of criminal case against the appellant and depart mental action was a necessity to achieve the end of justice. With regard to the merits of the case, we have ourselves examined the register Khasra Girdawari as well as Roznamcha Waqiati so produced before us and find no reason to disagree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Commis sioner that the appellant had no business to cancel the Wattar for Rabi 1981 and put the word "Rabi Khud Kasht" at his own, without any sort of verification by the Field Kanungo or any other Revenue Officer. We are in accord with the learned Commissioner that the examination of Roznamcha Waqjati clearly reveals that Khasra Nos. 159, 160 and 183 are no where mentioned at all in the said Roznamcha and insertion of Khasra Nos. 161, 165 and 166 which have been made in Rapat No. 57, dated 17th October, 1981 are clear interpolation on behalf of the appellant. The analysis of this fact made by the learned Commissioner in para. 4 of his judgment is so comprehensive that no exception can be taken to it. We are also in agreement with the learned Commissioner that the plea of the appellant that he was inexperienced, cannot be considered in his favour as his act was so bold that it actually destroyed the sanctity of the revenue record in such a desperate manner that it resulted into the destruc tion of certain rights which were vested in the complainant Muhammad Sharif against Mst. Zarina Begum. 9. In view of above analysis of the case, we are of the considered opinion that two concurrent findings of facts which are based on documentary evidence on the record as well as admission of the appellant of his guilt do not provide us with any reason to interfere with the two well considered judgments of the learned Assistant Commissioner, as well as learned Commissioner. 10. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.