1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER): ‑‑The appellant, Muhammad Hanif, was posted as Girdawar, Tandlianwala Circle, Tehsil Samundri when during an inspection of the revenue record of Chak No. 400/GB the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad found that Mutation No. 788 of the said Chak sanctioned on 20‑12‑1989 was patently illegal. The mutation was entered by Patwari Azhar Hussain, compared by the appellant Girdawar and was sanctioned by Naib‑Tehsildar Mehr Khalid Bashir. Whereas proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were initiated against the Patwari and the Girdawar by the Assistant Commissioner, Tandlianwala and the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad respectively, the case of the Naib‑Tehsildar was referred to the Board of Revenue as he had in the mean time been transferred out of the District. The appellant was charged as under: "(1) That a Mutation No. 788 of Chak No. 400/GB regarding transfer of State land measuring 4 Marlas out of Killa No. 21 of Sq. No. 46 under 7 Marlas Scheme was entered in favour of Noor s/o Ahmad and Umer Hayat s/o Noor in pursuance of the Board of Revenue Punjab Memo. No.2270/88/1988, dated 17‑9‑1988. (2) That no survey in respect of the above transferees was conducted and neither allotment orders of the Collector were obtained under the instructions. Above all no Sanad was issued to the transferees by the competent authority. (3) That you compared the entries of Mutation No. 788 of Chak No.400/GB in disregard with the instructions and did not point out these lacunas on the Mutation Sheet. It is reported that transfer of State land through this Mutation is bogus, fraudulent and designed to give undue benefit to the transferees. (4) A photostat copy of the inspection note recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 21‑5‑1997 in respect of the record of Chak No.400/GB is enclosed for explaining the allegations in detail."

2. On the conclusion of the departmental proceedings conducted against him the Patwari was compulsorily retired from service. In the other enquiry the appellant was reduced to the rank of Patwari by the Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad vide order dated 11‑11‑1991. Both the officials filed departmental appeals before the Commissioner against the above orders of punishment. By a common order dated 24‑8‑1992 the appeal filed by the Patwari was partly accepted and the major penalty awarded to him was converted into the minor penalty of stoppage of four increments as "he has had unblemished past". The appeal filed by the appellant was, however, dismissed on account of "his past record and repeated misdemeanour". The latter has now filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner.

3. The appellant has contended that holding of separate enquiries was against the spirit of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules; that joint proceedings should have been conducted against all the accused officials including the Naib‑Tehsildar; that the show‑cause notice issued under rule 7‑A of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules by the Authorised Officer did not mention the penalty which he intended to recommend to the Authority and similarly the show‑cause notice issued by the Authority under rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules did not indicate the penalty which the Authority intended to impose upon the appellant; that the Authority did not supply him a copy of the recommendations of the Authorised Officer; that the Authority imposed on him a penalty which had not been recommended by the Authorised Officer; that no action has been taken against the Naib‑Tehsildar who had sanctioned the mutation; that such mutations had been sanctioned in other parts of the District but no action has been taken in those cases against the, staff involved; that no benefit has been given to the appellant of the mitigating circumstances of the case, duly recognised by the appellate authority, on the pretext of the appellant's past service record although the same record had not stood in his way when he was promoted as Girdawar in 1988 and that no consideration has been given to his long service of 35 years.

4. The respondents have refuted the above contentions and insist that the departmental proceedings did not suffer from any material irregularity. They pant's service record which have particularly drawn attention to the appellant's 'chided a penalty of stoppage of one increment, suspension in 1972 and in adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 1965 and 1969.

5. We have seen the show‑cause notices and found that the appellant's contentions relating to the defects in these notices were not without any basis. they had not been issued in the manner prescribed in rules 7‑A and 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.

6. In his order dated 24‑8‑1992 the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division held the appellant responsible for committing .the irregularity but at the has time has referred to the mitigating circumstances such as "the general same haste in which the scheme appears to have been implemented and the fact that Umar Hayat son of Noor, whose name had been added, though not included in the survey register, was eligible for the allotment vide Board of Revenue circular letter dated 29‑11‑1989 allowing married major sons as extra family" and yet no allowance has been given to the appellant on his account because of the past conduct of the official. This does not sound logical when viewed in the context of the appellant's plea that it was the same service record which was not given an importance at the tune of appellant's promotion as Girdawar in 1988. It has clearly been stated in the aforesaid order of the Commissioner that under the policy laid down by the Board of Revenue, Umer Hayat was eligible for allotment which means that the appellant has committed only a procedural for irregularity for which the award of an extreme penalty is too harsh a punishment. Then there is also the matter of the Naib‑Tehsildar who had sanctioned the mutation but no action appears to have been taken against him. The appellant s grievance of discrimination would appear to be genuine.

7. In view of the foregoing and the fact that the appellant has rendered over 35 ears of service and is now at the fag‑end of his career, he deserves some Compassion. Accordingly, we accept the appeal and convert the major of penalty appellant's reduction to rank of Patwari from Girdawar into stoppage of four increments. There are no orders as to costs. H.B.T./458/Sr.P Appeal accepted