1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).‑Bashir Ahmad, ex‑Patwari, Depalpur has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and the Assistant Commissioner Collector, Depalpur District Okara as respondents. By virtue of the: appeal he has prayed that orders, dated 18th September, 1982 and `8th October, 1981 passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively be set aside and he be re‑instated into service with all back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mst. Hajran widow of Abdul Rehman resident of Village Kaloo Mahtam made an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Depalpur on 16th March, 1980 alleging fraud against the appellant, as a result of which she was deprived for the land measuring 64 Kanals and which was transferred to Mst. Rashida Begum the sister of the appellant. A preliminary proceeding was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, which resulted into service of a charge‑sheet upon the appellant and the matter was entrusted to Mr. Iftkhar Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class, Depalpur for enquiry. However, during the examination of the revenue record of village Bhana Sahiba in connection with the application of Mat, Goman it transpired that the appellant had entered Mutation No. 124, dated 17th June, 1977 proposing transfer of two Kanals land from Muhammad Yasin in favour of Mst. Goman on the basis of decree, dated 28th December, 1977 passed by the civil Court. Although the decree was passed against Muhammad Yasin and Shah Din which was executed against Muhammad Yasin. On these facts as well the appellant was charge‑sheeted and the enquiry was entrusted to Iftikhar Ahmad, Magistrate, 1st Class, Depalpur. It will not be out of place to mention here that the appellant submitted reply to the charge‑sheet and had denied the allegations. The learned Magistrate conducted the enquiry in accordance with the rules and submitted two separate reports to the authority on different dates. The Authority issued a notice under Rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules in both the enquiries and heard him in person on different dates. However, the appellant was dismissed from service by a single order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 7th October, 1981. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissio?ner, Lahore Division, Lahore, which was rejected by him vide his order, dated 18th September, 1982. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that he had not exercised any influence upon the parties to execute the documents in question and that they themselves had arranged the question exchange of land through registered deed. He has also submitted that General Power of Attorney given by Mst. Hajran Bibi in favour of his son was also a registered document duly registered in accordance with the Registration Act. He has submitted that he bad entered mutation with regard to the land of Muhammad Yasin strictly in accordance with the contents of the decree passed by the civil Court. Thus, he has concluded that the appellant has not committed any misconduct because he was bound to enter the mutation according to rules contained in the land record Manual which were duly attested by the Revenue Officer and if any fraud bad been played upon the aggrieved party they could have challenged the document in question before the civil Court which they have not done. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted these arguments by submitting that the appellant had forged the documents in question and is guilty of misconduct because be should not have entered the mutation in the name of his real sister blood‑relations in his own circle without the permission of District Attorney.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record very carefully. In order to adjudicate upon the merits or demerits of the case it has been considered expedient to reproduce the allegations levelled against the appellant which have been quoted by the Commissioner Lahore Division in his order, dated 18th September, 1982 impugned before us :‑ (1) That he had got land measuring 64 kanals by decietful means belonging to one Mss. Hajran Bibi in village Kaloo Mahtam, transferred in the name of his real sister Mst. Rashida Begum in exchange for an area equal to 39 Kanals 7 Marlas in village Lakhu Mulkans through a registered deed on 6th June, 1978 in his own circle. (2) After the said transaction the appellant managed to obtain General Power of Attorney from Mst. Hajran Bibi in favour of his real son Iftikhar Ahmad on 17th March, 1979 and on the basis of said power gote exchanged land measuring 39 kanals 7 marlas transferred back in the name of his sister through an oral Mutation No. 200, dated 29th March, 1981. (3) The area owned by Mst. Hajran Bibi in village Kaloo Mahtam which was transferred through exchange in the name of‑his sister was standing mortgaged with one Qasim Ali Shah, but while entering the Mutation No. 60, in respect of pre‑emption decree the rights of the mortgagee were not reflected therein on account of mala fide intention. (4) That the appellant had entered mutation No. 124 on 17th June, 1977 in village Bhana Sahiba of his circle proposing transfer of land measuring 2 Kanals from one Muhammad Yasin to Mst. Goman on the basis of civil Court decreed, dated 28th December, 1970 which was against said Muhammad Yasin. The entry of the mutation was parently wrong. So far as the Charges Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned the precise allega?tions against him that the appellant had got land of Mst. Hajran Bibi transferred in the name of her sister Mst. Rashida Begum in exchange through a registered deed, dated 6th June, 1978 this land admittedly was located in the Circle of the appellant. Similarly the allegation in the second charge that the appellant managed to get the registered General power of Attorney from Mst. Hajran Bibi in favour of his son on 17th March, 1979 and that the said Attorney exchanged the land and got it transferred back in the name of his real sister vide Mutation No. 200, dated 29th March, 1981. Thus it is clear that what the appellant had done is that he has given the effect to the registered deed as required under section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Furthermore, we may also observe here that the mutations are not attested by Patwari but the Patwari only enters the mutation, which is attested by the Revenue Officer who is ultimately responsible for the correctness of the mutations. The law on the subject is very clear that the mutations do not confer proprietary rights and the presumption of correctness is not attached to the entries made in it. If Mst. Hajran Bibi in fact had been defrauded by the appellant, she should have gone to the civil Court for a decree for declaring the deed as forged documents. Since she has not done so presumption would go in favour of the appellant. Similarly with regard to Mutation No. 200 it would be suffice to say that Iftikhar Ahmad had a General Power of Attorney of Mst. Hajran Bibi and he could legally act as such and if he had acted beyond the scope of the Power of Attorney or that it was a forged document, she should have challanged these before the Civil Court. Thus, we held that the charges Nos. 1 and 2 are not proved against the appellant. With regard to Charge No. 3, the allegation is that while incorporating the Mutation No. 6, in respect of pre‑emption decree he did not record the rights of the mortgagee in it. Similarly the allegations in charge No. 4 is that he made incorrect entries in the mutation other than that of the pre‑emption decree of the Court. We have already held that the functions of the Patwari is to enter the mutations according to the verbal statements of the concerned parties or according to the contents of the registered documents of the Civil Court. It is the ultimate responsibility of the Revenue Officer to see the correctness of the same. It seems that while incorporating the entries regarding the transactions mentioned in charges Nos. 3 and 4, he committed clerical errors and as such guilty of Charges No. 3 and 4 which are proved but there is no evidence of malice or of corruption against the appellant, which mitigates the offence or the allegations attributed to the appellant.

5. In view of the above discussion we hold that the Charges Nos. 1 and 2 are not proved against the appellant while the Charges Nos. 3 and 4 are proved against the appellant but taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances available in these transactions we find that the punishment awarded to him is harsh and we have decided to reduce the

6. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeal and modify .the impugned orders to the extent that penalty of dismissal from service shall be converted to that of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. The period out of service shall be treated as extra?ordinary leave. There will be no order as to costs. A.B ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted