1979 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

4. The Commissioner, Multan, passed order dated 16‑3‑1976 dealing with all the three cases and holding the appellant to be, guilty of corruption and misconduct ordered his compulary retirement from service.

5. The appellant relied on the following main grounds to assail the impugned, order:‑ (i) He relinquished the charge of the past of. A. C. O., Lodhran on 1 5‑8‑1975 but the consolidation scheme relating to Mauza Sal Sadar was finally approved on 27‑12‑1975 by his successor. According to the procedure the A. C. O. could make any number of amendments in the Wandajat proposals ors the basis of objections and application by the interested parties before the final approval of the scheme. (ii) All amendments were made with the consent and concurrence of the concerned parties including the complainant Abdul Hameed Khan. (iii) The signatures of the interested parties in the Register Consolidation Scheme were, obtained by the Patwari/Kanugo in accordance with the general field practice. There were no ulterior motives involved as the whole scheme had ultimately, to be, placed before the interested parties and their consent obtained at the time of final approval. (iv) At the time of final approval of the Se to on 27‑12‑1975 all interested parties again affixed their signatures/thumb‑impression in token of the consent to the Scheme, thus signifying their consent to all the amendments made prior to that date. (v) The proposals for consolidation Scheme was the entire responsibility of the A. C. O. and the Patwari and Kanugo were merely to assist him. It was not essential that a proposal by Field Kaungo should precede the proposal by the A.C.O. However the signatures of the Patwari/Kanugo did exist in Column, No. 9 of Register. (vi) The learned Commissioner had misread the record white holding that amendments in the Wandajats were made without the consent of the parties concerned. The consent of the parties produced before the Commissioner. (vii) The adverse remarks relating to the A. C. R. for 1960 were never communicated to the appellant. (viii) The adverse remarks relating to the special report for 1974 were incorrect as the same were made by the Deputy Commissioner on a misunderstanding that a complaint in respect of accepting a bribe of Rs. 35,000 by the appellant was pending at that time with the A. C. Department. The Commissioner had himself admitted in the impugned order that the departmental enquiry relating to the bribe case was decided in favour of the appellant. The investigation by the A. C. Department against the appellant was also dropped as indicated in the reply dated 2‑8‑1976 by the Circle Officer, Anti Corruption Establishment, Multan, on an application from the appellant, a copy of which bas been placed before the Tribunal. (ix) The A. C. Rs. of the appellant for the years 1974 and 1975 initiated by the A. D. C. (Consolidation) were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. (x) The Mutation Nos. 451 and 452 relating to the village Sandhiwala were made under the orders of two Collectors viz. A. D. C. (Consolidation) and the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran. It was explained that Mst. Ghulam Fatima had put up an application that her holding of about only two Kanals had been shown wrongly in the mutation sanctioned on 30‑7‑1964 showing her holding to be under a road belonging to the Highways Department. The appellant further explained that while the appellant was finding it difficult to comply with the orders of the A. D. C. (Consolidation) for making necessary corrections, Mst. Ghulam Fatima moved another application to the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran who called the appellant and ordered him to make the necessary correction.

6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and record was placed before us. The Departmental Representative conceded before us teat the A. C. O. was empowered to make amendments in the Wandajats before the final approval of the Consolidation Scheme relating to a whole village. It was further shown and conceded by the Departmental Representative before us that all amendments made in the Wandajats hore the consent of the concerned parties including the signatures of Ch. Abdul Hameed (complainant) as a right‑holder or as a Member of the Advisory Committee. The Departmental Representative further produced the final approval of the Scheme and showed that consent of all concerned parties had once again been recorded. From the record it appeared that the proposal by the Field Kanugo in Column No. 9 of the Register was missing in one or two cases only but the Departmental Representative conceded that the same was not a pre‑requisite for the exercise of powers by the A. C. O. We, therefore, fail to find any misconduct on the part of the appellant with regard to Consolidation Scheme of Mauza Sal Sadar.

7. With regard to the sanction of the mutation relating to village Sandhiwala, the appellant produced before us the orders of the Assistant Commissioner ordering him to make the corrections. We find from the order of the Commissioner that while it was conceded that the appellant had acted with the approval of the higher authorities, he has been held guilty of not pointing out that the record had been transferred to the Revenue Staff. The appellant has stated before us that he had explained the position to the Assistant Commissioner but he had ordered him verbally to set the matter right which was an obvious mistake. Surely the A.D.C. (Consolidation) and the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran should also have known the rules and regulations. The appellant, apparently, had no alternative but to comply, being a sub‑ordinate official. We further find in this case that there could have been no question of any corrupt motive as this action could not be to the disadvantage of any party. Naturally, the land under the road of Highways Department could not be shown to be belonging to be Ghulam Fatima.

8. With regard to the A. C. Rs. the contention of the appellant that the report for 1960 had not been communicated to him was disproved from record. His acknowledgment on a copy of the letter conveying the adverse remarks was produced before us and the appellant could not controvert the same.

9. With regard to the special report for 1974, Commissioner had stated in his order that the appellant did not make any effort to get the adverse remarks expunged and as such they stood against him.

10. From the foregoing, we find that the adverse remarks in two reports which are quite distant in time, should not have formed a sufficient basis to justify the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service After considering the arguments advanced by the parties before us we are of the view that the charges against the appellant have not been brought home to warrant the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Resultantly, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order with no orders as to costs.