1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑ R. 6(4) ‑ Enquiry ‑ Dispensing with requirement of ‑ Patwari charged of falsifying revenue record ‑ Charge based merely on circumstantial evidence Allegation provable only by proper enquiry --Dispensing with enquiry, in circumstances, not approved by Service Tribunal‑Dismissal order consequent to show‑cause notice set aside and case remanded for fresh decision after proper inquiry. Dost Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner, Multan 1980 P L C (C. S.) 613 and Mubarak Ahmad Malik and 4 others v. Federation of Pakistan 1980 P L C (C. S.) 418 ref. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant, Nazir Ahmad, was Patwari of Patwar Circle Amar Sidhu in Tehsil Lahore when he was dismissed from service vide older dated 23‑1‑1978 of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sadar Sub‑Division, Lahore, under rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, for falsifying the revenue record. His appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, teas dismissed on 24‑6‑1978 while a representation to the Member, Board of Revenue was rejected on 8‑3‑1979.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16‑9‑1976 the Assistant Commis sioner issued instructions that a gang of cheats and forgers ‑was active in the area and that in order to prevent mischief on their part no mutation of change of ownership from the Government in favour of any transferee should be entered or sanctioned unless the A. C. verifies the genuineness of such allotments. The appellant entered three mutations in village Charar, Tehsil Lahore, in respect of transfer of evacuee land without prior verifica tion by the A. C. The date on the mutations entry was 10‑9‑1976. The mutations were checked by the Girdawar and sanctioned by the Revenue Officer (Tehsildar, Lahore) on 15‑9‑1976. It is contended by the respondents that the entries were ante‑dated purposely, in collusion with the Kanungo and the Tehsildar, in order to circumvent the A. C.'s instructions of 16‑9‑1976 and were made in order to benefit the so‑called transferees and thereby cause huge loss to the Government.

3. The parties were heard and the record was examined. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the three mutations were actually made on 10‑9‑1976 on receipt of robkars from the A. C.'s office and were sanctioned on 15‑9‑1976 a day before the A. C.'s instructions were issued making compulsory the verification of mutation by the A. C. The respondents alleged that the appellant's bad intentions were evident from the fact that he failed to record any date of entry on the foils of the three mutations while he wrote the date 10‑9‑1976 on the counterfoils. Moreover, the Patwari's work book showed no entry of writing these mutations on 10‑9‑1976 on which date some other work was, mentioned. Again, in the Patwari's daily diary no report of the mutations was recorded against 10‑9‑1976 as is required under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. Also, the Field Kanungo's inspection note in the Roznamcha partal states that Mutation Nos. 1027 to No. 1043, within which the three mutations fall, were compared on 28‑9‑1976. If the appellant's case was that the checking was done on 15‑9‑1976 then be should have corrected the Field Kanungo's report in red ink, which was not done. All this goes to show that the mutations were not made on 10‑9‑1976 but were done in a hurry after the receipt of the A. C.'s instructions and were illegally ante‑dated. The appellant contested these assertions. He contended that entry of mutations by him was not enough; they were actually sanctioned by the Tehsildar on 15‑9‑1976 i. e. before the issuance of the relevant instructions. Moreover, no enquiry had been held and the one held by Mr. Irshad Hussain Zaidi, Magistrate, had been dropped because, according to the appellant, the allegations were not substantiated.

4. After hearing the parties and considering the facts of the case we are inclined to hold that the circumstances of the case called for a proper enquiry. Howsoever incriminating the evidence may appear the facts remain that the only evidence against the appellant is circumstantial and thus the charge against appellant could be proved only by holding a proper enquiry. We have repeatedly held that in such a situation an enquiry is essential. In re: Dost Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner, Multan (1980 P L C (C. S.) 613), is one of the reported decision in point. The view was endorsed and reiterated in In re: Mubarik, Ahmad Malik and 4 others v. Federation of Pakistan (1980 P L C (C. S.) 418). Since no departmental enquiry was held in this case, we set aside the impugned order dated 23‑1‑1978 and the subsequent orders dated 24‑6‑78 and 8‑3‑1978, passed by the higher departmental authorities and the case is remanded to Assistant Commissioner, Sadar Sub‑Division, Lahore, with the direction that the case be decided afresh after holding a proper enquiry under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. There will be no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.