Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 21 of 1949‑50, decided on 13th May 1951.

Punjab Land Revenue Act (VII of 1887), S. 13‑Appeal Remarks by Commissioner about matter the subject of separate charge‑Eliminated.

While accepting the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Commissioner to have remarked on matter which was the subject of a. separate charge still pending before A Deputy Com missioner.

This is an appeal against para. 4 of the order dated the 20th January, 1948, of, the Commissioner, Lahore Division (Mr. Inam‑ur‑Rahim) wherein the Commissioner gave a direction to the effect that----

"the appellant was posted as patwari of Beli circle. He applied for leave without pay for three months. The Deputy Commissioner ordered that he should join his circle first. This order he did not carry out but sat at home. He will, therefore, only get pay from the date on which he joined the district office Sialkot."

This direction has now resulted in the institution of an appeal by Muhammad Ibrahim.

For the purpose of elucidation or clarification of the concluding paragraph of the Commissioner's order referred to above it is necessary to specify briefly below the facts of the case.

While employed as a patwari in the Sialkot district the appellant, Muhammad Ibrahim, was transferred to the district headquarters office on 9th May 1941 as a clerk where he functioned as such till the date of his joining the Army on 23rd May 1942. The appellant remained in the Army till August 1.946, when he was reverted to the Civil Department where he joined as a clerk again on 12th August 1946. As a certain percentage of vacancies bad been earmarked for ex‑service men the office of the Deputy Commissioner put up a note to the effect that "since he has joined this office after release from the Militars Department, he may be considered for permanent appointment on further selection against one of the 60 per cent. posts reserved for the Ex‑Military candidates". On this the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, ordered on 15th November. 1946, that the appellant should go back to Patwari line. Muhammad Ibrahim filed an appeal before the Commissioner and while accepting the appeal of Muhammad Ibrahim the learned Commissioner added a paragraph already reproduced above against which the appellant has now ‑preferred this appeal.

I have heard the appellant and I am inclined to agree with his contention that, while accepting his appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Commissioner to have remarked in the manner he has done particularly in view of the fact that the matter was the subject of a separate charge which was still pending before the Deputy Commissioner. The position being as such I think there was no justification whatsoever in the inclusion of the concluding parapragh in the order dated the 20th January, 1948, of the learned Commissioner and I order its elimination from the order. As the case of the non‑compliance of the appellant with the order of the Deputy Commissioner is still pending with the Deputy Commis sioner I order that the enquiry in that case should now be completed and disposed of on merits consistent with law.

Appeal accepted to this extent only.

A. H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.