1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, Dated 10‑1‑1985. Subject:‑‑Delay in the submission of Draft charge‑sheet against Mr. Riaz Ahmad Girdawar Kanungo, Mian Channu. Dear Mr. Muhammad lqbal Ahmad formerly Naib‑Tehsildar, Mian Channu and Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Girdawar Kanungo, Mian Channu were ordered to be proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules in June, 1984 for delaying the implementation of a Judicial order of Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and favouring respondent. Your office was asked to send draft charge‑sheet against the officials. Charge -sheet against Mr. Muhammad lqbal Ahmad was sent after a lapse of 3 months vide your memo. No. 2728/SK, dated 17‑9‑1984. Your office was then informed that the Kanungo also has to be charge‑sheeted by this officer as the Charg are the same and the enquiry will have to be joint. Ever since September, 1984your office has been reminded vide memos of even number, dated 19‑i1‑1984, 9‑12‑1984 and 20‑12‑1984. The charge‑sheet is not forthcoming. This is the case where proceedings have been started by the Commissioner himself for the violation of Commissioner's judicial order. The interest taken by your office is visible from the record. I am convinced that the GAR and his branch has been grossly negligent and is primarily responsible for delaying this case. I would like you to convey my displeasure to Malik Ghulam Farid Langerial GAR in your office. You may also fix responsibility for the delay on the officials concerned for appropriate action against them. Please ensure that the charge‑sheet is sent immediately for proceeding further. At the end I would like to point out that the delay has caused a lot of inconvenience because Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar has been in the meantime, promoted as Tehsildar. Now the entire proceedings will have to be sent to Board of Revenue. Yours sincerely, Sd/‑ Farid‑ud‑Din Assshmad. Mr. Tariq Sultan, Deputy Commissioner, Multan." The reply of that demi‑official letter by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan is also relevant for the determination of the points involved in this appeal which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ D.O. No. 119/GAR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN. February 2, 1985. Subject:‑‑Delay in the submission of Draft Charge‑sheet against Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Girdawar Kanungo, Mian Channu. Dear Mr. Farid, Kindly refer to your D.O.No. EB‑2‑877/79, dated 10‑1‑1985 on the subject cited above.

2. I have enquired into this matter personally and checked the office record. Ch. Muhammad lqbal, Colony Naib Tehsildar, Mian Channu was placed under suspension vide order of the Commissioner No. 13281‑83, dated 6‑6‑1984. It was also directed by the same order that Mr. Riaz Ahmad Kanungo should be placed under suspension forthwith on the same allegation. Draft charge‑sheets in respect of both the CNT and Kanungo were to be prepared and submitted under (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. This order was unfortunately mis‑understood by my predecessor'. The said Girdawar was placed under suspension on the same day and Sh. Abdus Salam was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Colony Naib‑Tehsildar was re‑instated vide order of Commissioner No. EB‑2‑877/79, dated 12‑9‑1984. It was directed that the charge‑sheets against the Revenue Officer and the Kanungo be submitted on 17‑9‑1984 while that of Girdawar was not sent. It was directed vide No. EB‑2‑877/79, dated 3‑11‑1984 that the enquiry against the said Kanungo be stopped forthwith and draft charge‑sheet against the Kanungo, statement of allegation be submitted. These orders were complied with and Sh. Abdus Salam, M.I.C. submitted to D.C. Office the draft charge‑sheet, list of witnesses and documents as desired vide No. 1117/M.I.C., dated 5‑11‑1984. This was not put up to any officer and kept pending by NSKI. The same was ultimately submitted vide No. 46/S.K., dated 17‑1‑1985. The lower functionaries seemed to connive to delay the case deliberately as in this period the Girdawar has retired and CNT promoted. I have already called explanations of officials concerned. They will be dealt with severely. The delay and embarrassment caused in this case is highly regretted. With warm regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/‑ Tariq Sultan. Mr. Farid‑ud‑Din Ahmad, Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan.

7. As earlier mentioned that Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad Naib‑Tehsildar was suspended by the Commissioner, Multan Division on 6‑6‑1984 and the Deputy Commissioner, Multan was asked to provide the draft charge‑sheet. The same was supplied to the Commissioner, Multan Division on 17‑9‑1984. There was no substantial delay in providing the draft charge‑sheet in respect of Naib Tehsildar. However, admittedly there was a substantial delay in supply of charge‑sheet in respect of Riaz Ahmad, Kanungo which was done in January, 1985. The then Deputy Commissioner Mr. Tariq Sultan as is manifest from his demi‑official letter addressed to the Commissioner has explained reason for this delay and has not held the appellant responsible for any such delay. The contention of the appellant is that the case for supply of draft charge‑sheet was for the first time put up on 16‑9‑1984. On the following day, he submitted the charge‑sheet to the Commissioner. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant has been dealing with this case from very beginning or was responsible for the delayed submission of charge‑sheet. The respondents have not produced anything in rebuttal of the said contention of the appellant. The Commissioner in his justification report admitted that the appellant enjoyed good reputation. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there was some misunderstanding on the part of the Commissioner regarding delayed submission of draft charge‑sheet. The Revenue Assistant has to work under the direct control/supervision and directions of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is the best Judge about his performance. The Deputy Commissioner has given him a good report for the relevant period. The impugned adverse report was the upshot of the misunderstanding as mentioned above and is without justification. We, therefore, expunge the entire adverse report for the period from 17‑6‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984. Similarly it is established from the report that the appellant for the period from 1‑1‑1984 to 16‑6‑1984 was not doing the office job and was performing the judicial duties as Executive Magistrate. Hence the remarks of the Commissioner "Not successful in an office job" are un‑warranted and without justification. We also expunge the said remarks.

8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned adverse remarks are expunged. There will be no order as to costs. A.E./221/Sr.P Appeal accepted.