1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Muhammad Sarwar, ex‑Patwari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 28th March, 1982 passed by respondent No. I dismissing the service appeal of the appellant and order, dated 13th July, 1981 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. He has impleaded the Commissioner, D. G. Khan Division as well as Settlement Officer/Collector Leiah, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be re‑instated in services with all back benefits and emoluments.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Mahal Patwari of Circle Sarishta Nashaib Qazi Ghulam Nabi Nasir, Deputy Director (Recd.) resident of Mohallah Islamabad/Faizabad, Leiah, submitted an application that he had sought copy of Khasra Girdawari for the period 1974 to 1979, relating to Chak No. 368/T. D. A., Tehsil Leiah. The Patwari recorded an entry to the effect that the entries of the above harvests were not recorded for Kharif, 1976. In that application the applicant requested that the Patwari be summoned with record and supply of copies be arranged. On that application it was ordered that the E. A. C. O. should send his report by 30th August, 1980. Instead S. T. R. Leiah conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report, dated 28th August, 1980, whereupon the appellant was placed under suspension as the allegations were 'of a very serious nature. C. N. T. Leiah North, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and two charges were levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer reported that the appellant did not send a reply of the charge‑sheet and the only inference that accepted the allegations framed against him. A show‑cause notice for 8th March, 1981, was issued to the appellant which he received on 6th April, 1981. However, he did not attend the Court on 15th April, 1981, 26th April, 1981, 10th May, 1981, 24th May, 1981, 4th June, 1981 and 17th June, 1981. On 22nd June, 1981, he appeared and stated that he did not receive duplicate copy of the charge‑sheet. A copy of the show‑cause notice, on 22nd June, 1981 was given to him, with a direction to tender his reply on 9th June, 1981. In reply to the charge‑sheet the appellant stated that he be allowed inspection of the file and provide 14 days period to file the reply. However, he was allowed inspection which be did on 6th July, 1981 but he was allowed a period of 14 days as the same was not provided in the relevant rule 8 of the E. & D. Rules, 1975. He was given detailed hearing. He stated that he had submitted reply to the charge‑sheet to Mr. Abdul Hameed, Ahmad of the Enquiry Officer but he had never mentioned this fact ever earlier either verbally or in writing. Ultimately the Collector after hearing his entire case, came to the conclusion that although serious lapses on his part warrant dismissal but keeping in view length of service of the appellant, he compulsory retired him from service. Aggrieved against this order he filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, who after going through the record of this case and looking into the inquiry report, did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal accor dingly on 28th March, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney who has adopted the entire comments of Settle ment Officer, Leiah and has stoutly defended the impugned orders as most justified.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that most of the trouble was created and hurdles were placed at the instance of Ghulam Ghaus, Paishi Qanoongo of respondent No. 2, who was inimical towards the appellant and had nursed grudge at the time when said Ghulam Ghaus to be Girdawar and the appellant used to be a Patwari under him in the years 1976 to 1977. It was further submitted that the impugned order, dated 28th March, 1982, passed by respondent No. 1, and order dated 13th July, 1981, were ultra vires of the rules and had been passed in contraven tion of the mandatory provisions of law in view of the fact that the charge and the alleged misconduct was not brought home to the appellant and the appellant was materially misled and adversely affected in putting up his defence. It was further argued that the impugned orders were not main tainable in law on the ground that the same have been passed on the basis of Enquiry Report of C. N. T. with which the appellant was not associated and was not given time to submit his reply to the final show‑cause notice and charge‑sheet, which, in fact, was against rule 8 of the E. & D. Rules. The entire case of the appellant is based on the claim of misread ing of evidence by both the Collector as well as learned Commissioner and in this way it has been submitted that he has been wrongly punished. 6. 1 have given my anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties. After going through the Inquiry Report as well as two impugned judgments so passed against the appellant, what I find is that there is no doubt about the fact that the appellant was posted in Chak No. 368/T. A. at the relevant time and it has been proved from record that be failed to incorporate Khasra Girdawari pertaining to Kharif 1974 to 1976 in Khasra Girdawari register, but instead has made certain notes on the margin of the same and has clearly omitted factum of possession in the relevant columns. It has also been established beyond any shadow o doubt that in the register Khasra Girdawari pertaining to Rabi 1974 to 1975. The appellant absolutely failed to incorporate the entire crop of Kharif of 1975. of the entire village. I have verified from the record that all Khasras of entire Chak pertaining to Kharif 1975, were not entered anywhere nor there is any mention of Tareekh Karkardagi etc. 1t has been proved on record that he gave a copy of Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1974, pertaining to Khasra No. 76/903, situated in Chak No. 368/T. D. A. which was absolutely incorrect. In view of these two established facts on the record I do not feel any justification to interfere with the two concrete find ings of the authorities on the ground that Patwari being custodian of revenue record. it was his foremost duty to maintain it in proper order and also record Girdawari at the spot honestly as valuable rights of the land owners of his Circle.

7. I have also taken care to find whether the appellant was associated with the inquiry or not by the Enquiry Officer and have no hesitation to repel that he himself deliberately failed to associate with the said enquiry as his guilty conscious was heavily overcast on him and he could not dare to come forward to face the charges against him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that be was condemned ex parte by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately when he appeared at the belated stage, he was given full chance by the Collector as well as learned Commissioner.

8. The result is I uphold the two concurrent findings of facts so arrived against him and I am also satisfied the same have been rightly arrived at. The appeal is as being without any merits. There will be n order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.