Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 667 of 1974, decided on 13th January, 1980.
----S. 4‑Dismissal for misconduct Proceedings under M. L. R. 58 during 1569‑70‑Charges of corruption and acquisition of property disproportionate to known sources of income‑Evidence not supporting allegations‑Property acquired by father having known large financial sources and transfer to son (accused) Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside.
Mohammad Shaukat Tarar, appellant, joined as Lawyer Magistrate, on 4th February, 1954 on the basis of the recommendations of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission. On 4th December, 1969 while the appellant was posted as Additional District Magistrate, Compellpur he was summoned by Commissioner, Rawalpindi and handed over an order of suspension dated 4th December, 1969 under Martial Law Regulation No. 58. On 6th January, 1970 the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet dated 2nd January, 1970 with a statement of allegations. The appellant submitted reply and appeared before the Military Tribunal. On 16th Match, 1970 the appellant was dismissed from service under M. L. R. No. 58 w.e.f. 27th February, 1970. The appellant has filed this appeal under sections 4 and 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
2. The following are the three charges against Mohammad Shaukat Tarar :‑
"(i) Whereas, you, Mr. Mohammad Shaukat Tarar, PCS (now under suspension), while posted as Additional District Magistrate, Sahiwal, during the year 1968 by abusing your official position and powers, improperly acquired and purchased on nominal rates, from the Islamabad Oustees, 12 squares of land in the name of your father, Mr. Raj Mohammad and subsequently by using your official influence, you, got the entire land consolidated in Chak No. 56/12‑L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, you are thus charged with 'misconduct'.
(ii) And, whereas, you, in the above capacity, by abusing your official position and powers, got the metalled road 166/9‑L of District Council extended by another 11 furlongs at a cost of Rs. 1,33,300 with the ulterior motive of getting Chak No. 56/12‑L, mentioned in Charge No. 1 above linked with pacca road, you are thus charged with 'misconduct'.
(iii) And whereas, while in Government service, you acquired pro perties and assets in your name and in the name of your parents which are disproportionate to your known sources of income : you are, thus, charged for being 'corrupt'."
3. Written arguments have been filed by both the parties.
(a) Charge No. 1.‑The allegation against the appellant is that while posted as ADM, Sahiwal during 1968, the appellant acquired and got purchased land in the name of his father from the Islamabad Oustees at the nominal rate of Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 4,500 per 12 acres of land. Ch. Khushi Mohammad, a family friend of the appellant and who was a resident of Sahiwal then applied for the consolidation in Chak No. 56/12‑L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal on behalf of all the individuals and the com petent authority sanctioned the consolidation within a period of two days. The contention of the appellant is that he never used his official position or powers and that the land in question was purchased by his father Ch. Raj Mohammad at Rawalpindi from the Islamabad Oustees and the vendees did not live in Sahiwal where the appellant was posted and as such they were outside the jurisdiction of his official sphere of influence. Moreover the appellant was not the sole beneficiary of the estate of his father who had two more sons. The appellant further contends that price of land mentioned in the sale, deed is higher than actually paid in order to safeguard the rights of the vendee and this was done with their agreement who executed the sale deeds in favour of his father. The appel lant states that the land was Banjar Qadeem according to the record submitted by him. With regard to the consolidation proceedings, the appellant states that the charge is incorrect as there were several other cases where consolidation was done with the same speed. The record of the 55 other similar cases where orders were passed with similar speed are indicated. Moreover, no rule or regulation had been infringed. The respondent has argued that the attorney, Ch. Khushi Mohammad, was a family friend and was a resident of Sahiwal. The price of land which is stated to be Rs. 20,000 per square according to the appellant was actually worth about Rs. 1 lac per square. As regards the allottees, the respon dent has stated that it was Ch. Khushi Mohammad who applied to the Colony Assistant, Pakpattan for the consolidation and transfer of land to Chak No. 45/12‑L. After obtaining a no objection certificate from Colony Assistant, Pakpattan, the applications were brought to Sahiwal and final orders were passed by the Collector on the next date. According to the respondent, Masud Ahmad, Head Clerk, states that the appellant had told him that it was his personal affair and therefore he should expedite the same. Zahoor Hussain, the dealing Clerk had also corroborated this fact. So far as the first part of the charge is concerned that the appellant was instrumental in getting the land for his father, this has not been proved as the transactions took place at Rawalpindi where the vendees lived while the appellant was posted at Sahiwal but so far as the second part of the charge is concerned that official position was used in the consolidation proceedings, there may be some correctness in it. The appellant has also relied on the result of the enquiry carried out by the Anti‑Corruption Department regarding this case. The appellant states that the enquiry after detailed investigation had been dropped. Because of this and the fact that the first part of the charge is not proved against the appellant, the second part of charge is not of a serious nature. Numerous instances have been quoted of consolidation being carried out with great speed.
(b) Charge No. 2:‑The allegation is that the appellant taking advan tage of his official position as Additional District Magistrate, Sahiwal, got the programme of Sahiwal District revised so that the District Council road from Chah No. 166/9‑L to Chak No. 56/12‑L was included n the construction programme. This involved an expenditure of Rs. 1,33,300. It is alleged that the appellant got the extended portion of the road in order to link his Chak with the metalled road. The appellant's contention is that the portion of the road in dispute was metalled in the public interest and no official influence was exercised by the appellant. He states that the District Council approved Resolution No. 1214 dated 22nd February, 1964 and proposed the road to be metalled. This portion of metalling the road was started in the year 1968 when the appellant was posted at Sahiwal: The appellant denies the use of his official position as he was not the Member of the District Council, Sahiwal. The respondent's contention is that Secretary to Government, Local Bodies in pursuance of letter No. 20‑RWP/RA‑2‑1/(a) 64‑45 dated 19th February, sent a pro posal for the construction of roads wherein the above‑mentioned road was not included. Project Director, Sahiwal, sent the proposal back that some other roads including this road be added in the proposal. The District. Council, Sahiwal sent the revised proposal placing the road at Serial No. 6 but when the Agenda for the District Council's meeting dated 4th December, 1968 was prepared, this road was placed at Serial No. 1. Three other roads were also included in the revised proposal. The respondent has argued that the appellant was posted as A. D. M. at the relevant time and because of his invisible influence the proposal was sent back and then the road was included in the programme. We have seen the record. From the record it appears that it was the Finance Sub‑Division which suggested that the road be con structed instead of Dispensary and ultimately the Chairman, Tehsil Council, Sahiwal suggested that this road be taken up. The appel lant was never a member of the District Council. No evidence had been produced by the respondent to show that the Project Director of the Chairman, Tehsil Council were influenced by the appellant to take tip the disputed portion of road. In view of this failure on the part of the respondent, this charge is not proved against the appellant.
(c) Charge No. 3.‑The allegation is that the appellant acquired pro perty and assets in his name and in the name of his parents dispropor tionate to his known sources of income. The Special Committee C‑I, Lahore who examined the declaration of assets of the appellant has con cluded "Judging from the statements made by the Officer in his return, his assets do not appear to be disproportionate to his total income. The veracity of the statements bout large gifts of land by the father and other transactions stated above as well as of the income alleged to have been received by him from the gifted agricultural property would need to be investigated further." The Assets Committee partly held that the appellant's ancestral property needed further investigation. The appellant's contention is that the Assets Committee had cleared him from this charge. Moreover, his father had for along time been a respectable and well‑to‑do citizen of Gujranwala District and he owned many squares of land in Gujranwala from which he had a large income and some of the ancestral property was divided into equal shares. The respondent has argued that while posted as A. D. C., Campbellpur the appellant used to levy heavy fines and received illegal gratification. The transfer of property in the family among the relations without any ostensible reason smacks of interior motives. We are convinced that the appellant's father had large holdings from which he had a fairly large income and transfer of immovable property within the family especially from the father to his children is common phenomenon in this country. The appellant's state ment also satisfied the Assets Committee as it did not suggest action against the appellant on the basis of the declaration submitted by him. The charge is, therefore, not proved against the appellant.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that no charge against the appellant could be held to have been proved. There was only some evidence that he took interest in getting the consolidation of the land in question completed with unusual speed. But nothing has been produced before us to show that the appellant by that in any way took any unusual and undue advantage so far as the value of the land was concerned. The action of the appellant at the most calls for no more than a warning. The appeal is accepted and the order of dismissal of the appellant is set aside. Since after the dismissal from service, the appellant has been practising lawyer, therefore he has undertaken not to claim any salary from the Government for the period he remained out of service. We accordingly order that the appellant will not get any salary for the period he remained out of service.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer