1991 PLP 112 (CLC)

Respondent No.1 in person. Mian Inamul Haq for Respondent No.2. Brief facts of the case are that Ghulam Dastagir, respondent No.2 in his capacity as lambardar of Chak No. 199/EB, Tehsil Burewala district Vehari made a complaint to the AC/Collector, Burewala against the petitioner to the effect that the latter was unable to perform his duties as Chowkidar of the said Chak on account of his old age and illness. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the Chowkidar under reference deserved removal for misconduct and neglect of duty. The AC/Collector, Burewala vide his order dated 27‑6‑1989 removed the petitioner from the office .of Chowkidar of Chak No. 199/EB and appointed respondent No.1 as Chowkidar in his place. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan who vide his order dated 30‑9‑1989 dismissed the same.

2. Aggrieved with the above order of the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Multan the petitioner came up with the present revision petition under the Land Revenue Act.

3. I have heard the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The petitioner contended that he had been removed from the office of Chowkidar by the AC, Burewala without hearing him which was against the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that revision before the Board of Revenue was not competent under the Land Revenue Act as Chowkidar was not a village Officer within the meaning of the said Act. He further stated that the Chowkidari Rules, 1876 framed under section 39‑A of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872 governed the appointment etc. of the Chowkidars upto 30‑4‑1984 and thereafter the Chowkidara system in the rural as well as in urban areas of the Province of the Punjab came within the purview of the Punjab Chowkidara Rules, 1983 which came into force with effect from 1‑5‑1983. The petitioner was not able to rebut the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. There‑ is much substance in the pleadings of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. According to Rule 7 of the Punjab Chowkidara Rules, 1983 the appointment of a Chowkidar will be made by the District Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner on the recommendations of the village/Ward Councillor and Headman of the area. The Chowkidar so appointed in the rural area will work under the cooperation and supervision of the village Headman. The Chowkidara Rules 1983 are silent about the removal or dismissal of a Chowkidar but it can be very safely presumed that the authority vested with the powers of appointment of a Chowkidar has the powers to dismiss or remove him from the office. There is no doubt in my mind that the revision before the Board of Revenue is not competent under the Land Revenue Act. There is, however, no provision in the Punjab Chowkidara Rules, 1983 which empowers the Board of Revenue to hear appeal or revision against the order or dismissal of removal of a Chowkidar, passed by the District Magistrate or the Assistant Commissioner. The rules in question were notified by the Government of the Punjab in the Home Department. It is thus clear that the Board of Revenue has nothing to do with these rules. At the same time if an objection is taken to the competency of an appeal/revision, it is incumbent upon the appellant/petitioner to establish that he has a right of appeal/revision. It means that the burden of proof in this respect lies on the appellant petitioner. The petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the said burden. The case regarding removal of the petitioner from the office of the Chowkidar of Chak No. 199/EB, Tehsil Burewala was initiated by respondent No.2 being the Headman of the Chak. The A.C. Burewala who was the IC competent authority removed the petitioner from the office of Chowkidar of Chak No. 199/EB and appointed Allah Ditta, respondent No.1 as Chowkidar in I his place vide his order dated 27‑6‑1989. The contention of the petitioner that he was condemned unheard by the A.C, does not find support from the record. The order of the A.C. dated 27‑6‑1989 falsifies the stand of the petitioner. No irregularity or illegality appears to have been committed by the A.C. Burewala while passing order dated 27-6 1989. The Addl. Commissioner (.Revenue), Multan while passing the impugned order had also heard the petitioner.

5. The long and the short of the discussion in the above para is that the present revision not maintainable being incompetent. The same is, therefore, dismissed. A.A./368/R Revision dismissed.