2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 6th April, 2004. Appeal brings in challenge the impugned orders dated 13‑9‑2000 vide which the appellant was dismissed from service. He filed review petition, but the same was also rejected through order dated 26‑1‑2001 hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. As per facts relevant to the present appeal, the appellant is Tehsildar, who was posted as Consolidation Officer in 1990 in District Lodhran for the purpose of land consolidation‑operations initiated in Mauza Khanwah Shumali and Janoobi. Out of 1000 wandas, 811 wandas were dealt with and apparently the consolidation proceedings remained inconclusive. Appellant says that mischief was played by one Abdul Rasheed Patwari, who committed forgery in connection with consolidation proceedings and has since been awarded seven years sentence by NAB on account of allegation of forgery including, forgery of signatures of the appellant and others. It is also maintained by the appellant that the said Patwari tampered with record replacing many pages and inserting totally new schemes after receiving illegal gratification from the beneficiaries. It is also stated by the appellant that he never signed/confirmed the consolidation proceedings and the same were also not approved by the competent authority/ADC (Consolidation). However, as complaints surfaced regarding bogus consolidation proceedings charge‑sheet was served upon the appellant along with other accused. Appellant stood transferred in the meantime from Lodhran, leaving consolidation work to be completed by his successor. Inquiry was held under E&D Rules 1999. Appellant was confronted with the following allegations along with co‑accused Girdawar:‑ (i) At the time of confirmation of the consolidation scheme of Mauza Khanwah Shumali and Mauza Khanwah Janoobi, the consent of the concerned landowners of Wanda Nos.998 to 1012 was not obtained, in violation of the rules as well as "Masawada Scheme". (ii) The land belonging to 6tf residents of Mauza Khanwah Shumali was exchanged with the land comparative less fertile and of less value in Mauza Khanwah Janoobi, against their wishes, in violation of the mandatory provisions of consolidation law, with ulterior motives, to give undue benefit to Mr. Azhar Ghaloo and others and thereby caused illegal displacement of the above mentioned 60 residents of Mauza Khanwal Shumali from their house/lands. Appellant submitted reply denying the allegations. Appellant took the plea that during past five years, no complaint had been received about the conduct of the appellant and that Arshad Bhutta Girdawar, had submitted a report in his self‑assumed role as Tehsildar Consolidation and that the said Girdawar had strained relation with the appellant and was bent upon harming him. Appellant also took the position that if some landowners had objections against consolidation process, they could not have kept silent five years and should have filed appeals when he was posted as Consolidation Officer. Appellant further pointed out that he was Supervisory officer and was not directly involved in consolidation operations. Appellant also stated that Khanwah Shumali and Janoobi were the same revenue estate when the same Hadbust number without any boundary line and that it was nowhere determinated that such land was fertile and such land was infertile. However, the authority did not agree with the contentions of the appellant and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed his lengthy arguments maintaining that in the first place, the very departmental proceedings conducted and concluded against the appellant were illegal, since there was no concept of authorized officer under E&D Rules 1999, whereas the charge‑sheet was served upon the appellant by ADC(G) Lodhran in his capacity as authorized officer and service of charge‑sheet by the authorized officer, who did not exist in the rules, vitiated the whole, proceedings. It is further stated that proceedings were started on the report of one Arshad Bhutta, who was a Girdawar/Kanungo, but has posed himself as Consolidation Officer and who was actually in league with local landowners of giving them some benefits. It is further stated that no action could be started against the appellant on the basis of statements of those who had also been approaching the Army Monitoring Cell with a view to harming the service career of the appellant and who had their own motives behind the plan. It is next maintained by learned counsel that the allegation that the appellant had verified consolidation entries without the consent of concerned landowners was wrong since thumb‑impression/signatures of landowners were obtained on the relevant proceedings as well as on Kabzulwasool and so the very basis of the inquiry report stood knocked out. It is further averred' that the appellant did not violate the Masawada of the consolidation scheme or any relevant instructions and allegations in the connection were not supported by any evidence. It is also pointed out that consolidation work done had not attained finality and was open to revision in the light of objections if any, and those who had objection could file appeals before the competent authority. It is next pointed out that, on the report of local administration, Anti‑corruption cases were registered against Abdul Rasheed Patwari, who had indulged in large scale forgery during his involvement in consolidation work, as he had interpolated with consolidation record, replaced pages and had himself signed as consolidation officer through forgery and he had since been sentenced by NAB. It is also averred that appellant had 14 years unblemished service record and excellent reports. It is finally stated that no loss to the Government was caused by the appellant and nothing was done against the interests of the Government and that the very fact that consolidation had not attained finality and reconsolidation proceedings had been conducted was sufficient to show that the appellant was simply victimized and was punished for the sake of punishment without any basis.

4. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is pointed out that the appellant was granted personal hearing by the authority before passing the impugned orders. It is further stated that punishment was awarded to the appellant since allegations levelled against the appellant stood proved in the inquiry report.

5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that the respondents have not been able to substantiate their contention in respect of many points raised by the appellant. It is not sufficient to say on the part of the respondents that proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. Appellant pointed out drawbacks in. the manner inquiry was conducted and findings were given. The Inquiry Officer, who is impleaded as respondent No.2, has not been able to rebut those points raised by the appellant in his parawise comments as respondent No.2. The fact is however, established from record that there were drawbacks in the consolidation proceedings and I main responsibility for those deviations rested upon the Patwari, who is reported to have been sentenced on account of forgery and other charges Appellant appears to have done his supervisory work as Consolidation Officer properly except that he had not been vigilant enough as Supervisory Officer. The contention of the appellant that his signatures were forged is not rebutted by the respondents. I further find that consolidation proceedings had not been drawn finally and remained inconclusive. For this reason, reconsolidation operations took place in the same revenue estate subsequently. I also agree with the appellant that if there had been any complaint, the same could have been attended to by the appellant if appeals were filed before him at the time he was working as Consolidation Officer. Instead of appeals, complaints were made by the affected persons and because of these complaints, proceedings were started against the appellant and others. I also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that proceedings under E&D Rules 1999 were not properly conducted as the ADC(G) could not act as authorized officer under the said rules because the scheme of authorized officer did not exist in rules of 1999. The fact is proved after examination of contentions of the appellant as well as those of respondents that no loss was actually caused by the appellant and no ulterior motives could be attributed to the appellant at the same time if any mistakes were made or the appellant had not been vigilant in the performance of his duty as Consolidation Officer. No doubt, appellant was not involved in any mischief and his past service record also showed that he could not be expected to involve himself in any malpractices, but at the same time fact remains that he showed some slackness in his supervisory role. Apparently, his subordinate staff took advantage of the slackness, but on the basis of such slackness, appellant could not have been awarded a major penalty. Therefore, considering all relevant aspects of the case, minor, penalty of "censure" is considered sufficient on account of some inefficiency on the part of the appellant. Appeal is, therefore, accepted to the extent. Resultantly, impugned orders shall stand modified, as the penalty of dismissal from service shall be converted into that of 'Censure'. Appellant shall stand reinstated and the period intervening shall, be treated as leave of the kind due. H.B.T./15/PST Order accordingly.