1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing : 9th January 1980. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Bashir Ahmad, appellant, was posted as Kanungo (Consolidation) Circle Nangal Machiana, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot when he was charge-sheeted on 8-12-1975 by the then Settlement Officer/Collector. The Settlement Tehsildar, Sialkot, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sialkot after hearing the appellant ordered his dismissal from service w.e.f. 17‑8‑1978. The Commissioner, Lahore rejected his appeal on 18‑8‑1979.

2. The main contention of the appellant was that the order of D. C. was based on conjectures and that the allegations were not proved against him. Moreover, the report was not supplied to the appellant and that the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and excessive.

3. We have heard the parties and consulted the record. The appellant wag exonerated on some charges but some of them were held to be proved against him. Charges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were proved and that the others were not proved. The three main allegations against the appellant are as follows :‑ (i) Charge No. 4--At the time of drawing `Darjabandi' the accused surreptitiously entered `chair Mumkin Rasta' and `chair Mumkin Khali' into Classes I & II Darjas. (ii) Charge No. 5.‑Vide Mutation No. 39, the land in dispute measuring 91 kanals, 7 marlas which stood allotted to one Sharifan who sold and transferred it to Mst. Sharifan Bibi daughter of Umar Din and Ghulam Rasool in equal shares in lieu of Rs. 4,

000. The accused Girdawar violated the provisions contained in paragraph 24.3 of the Land Record Manual by, purchasing land in the name of his wife within his circle. (iii) Charge No. 6.‑At Serial No. 57 of the Khatauni Ishtimal, joint Khata in the name of Mst. Sharifan Bibi and Ghulam Rasul has been made. At Serial No. 47 of Register Haqdaran gamin they have been jointly shown. But in the Register Scheme, the Khatas of the aforesaid load owners have been shown separately. The accused official misusing his official position partitioned the Khatas himself which is against the law/rules on the subject."

4. The appellant denies that this Mutation No. 39 relate to his wife, who is also named Mst. Sharifan arid is the daughter of one Umar Din. It is contended by the appellant that Mutation No. 39 relates to some other Mst. Sharifan Bibi. In view of this doubt, Charge No. 5 is not conclusively proved against the appellant but Charge No. 6 that originally the entries were made in joint names and the Kanurigo then made entries for each of the names separately without obtaining permission of higher authorities or following the prescribed procedure is proved against the appellant from tine record. In view of the findings recorded against Charge No. 5, it is not necessary to deal with Charge No.

4. No irregularity has been committed during the disciplinary proceedings. Charge No. 6 is proved against the appellant and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.