Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 181 of 1975, decided on 25th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 13-12-1974 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 586/S of 1959).

Rr.3, 4 & 8 read with Notification dated 1-8-1962 issued under S. 28(1) (2) of Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) read with S. 105(l)(d) of Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)--Dismissal from service-Conferring all powers of Collector on Settlement Officer (respondent) with exception of power under Chapter VI of Punjab Land Revenue Act relating to collection of revenue-Petitioner (Patwari) not concerned with collection of revenue dismissed by respondent Settle ment Officer-.Respondent appointed as Collector not for disposal of settlement work only but for all purposes other than revenue collection and petitioner's service not concerned with any matter relating to collection of revenue-Order of dismissal passed by Settlement Officer, held, not open to exception.

Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1980

-The petitioner, a revenue Patwari, was on 3-1-1961 charge-sheeted by the District Collector, Multan for misconduct, following which an inquiry, was held and on 28-10-1962 he was dismissed from service. This order of dismissal, after unsuccessful appeal and revision, was ultimately set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, vide his order in review dated 10-11-1965, _ on the short ground that the order of dismissal was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) who was not competent to exercise powers of suspension, removal or dismissal of Patwaris and the order passed was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The learned Member Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Multan for further action.

After the remand order, the petitioner was again dismissed from service by respondent No. 3 Shaikh Maqbool Ahmad, the Settlement Officer, Multan, vide his order dated 15-3-1966 which order was maintained both appeal as well as in revision vide orders dated 12-5-1966 and 12-1-1968 respectively. This order of dismissal was challenged in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 586/5 of 1969 on the short ground that the Settlement Officer, he being neither the appointing authority nor dismissing authority of the petitioner nor in any manner concerned with the charges on which an inquiry was held against the petitioner. It was not disputed in the High Court that under the relevant Rules, the Delegation of Powers Rules in respect of Board of Revenue, for the Patwaris in Lahore, Multar, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Bahawalpur, D. I. Khan and Peshawar Divisions, the Collector concerned was the appointing authority and the authority to suspend, reduce in rank, retire compulsorily, remove or dismiss from service. The Department, however, relied upon a notification dated 1-8-1962 under which the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections (1) and (2) of section 27 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and by subsections (1) and (2) of section 105 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, was pleased to confer upon Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, C. S. P., Settle ment Officer, Multan District, all the powers of a Collector under the said Act (with the exception of Chapter VI of the former Act) to be exercised within the local limits of the Multan District, and further that in the exercise of these powers, Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, C. S. P., was not subject to the control of the Collector of the Multan District. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the dismissal order made by the Officer was within jurisdiction for the order was passed by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad in his capacity as a Collector, and the petition was, therefore, dismissed.

In support of this leave petition, Raja Abdul Razzaque, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a limited contention and that was, that the petitioner's services were never placed at the disposal of the Settlement Officer nor was the petitioner in any way connected with the settlement work which was undertaken in the District in August, 1962 and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Settlement Officer, in his capacity as Collector was not legally competent to dismiss the petitioner. The argument overlooks the fact that the respondent No. 3 was not appointed as a Collector for the disposal of settlement work only but was Collector for all purposes other than for the purpose of revenue collection under Chapter VI of the Land Revenue Act. We cannot read any limitation in the notification, so widely expressed, that the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 was limited to dealing with the Officers concerned with settlement work only, for not only he had been empowered under the notification to exercise all powers of the Collector in the District of Multan except for powers contained in Chapter VI A but in exercise of such powers he was not subordinate to the Collector of the District. We have also noticed that the petitioner was not dismissed from service in connection with any matter relating to collection of revenue which is the subject-matter of Chapter VI of the Land Revenue Act.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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