Find a Lawyer

Case No. 349 of 1977. decided on 24th September, 1979.

‑‑ S. 4‑Compulsory retirement‑Departmental appeal rejected by authority not empowered to decide appeal ‑ Appeal, in circumstances, accepted by Service Tribunal and case remanded for decision by competent authority.

‑Mohammad Sarwar, the appellant, an ex‑Patwari, was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 20th December, 1976 issued by the District Collector, Sahiwal, and his appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan, on 27th October, 1977. The charge against him was that he helped his successor, Abdul Rehman, Patwari, Halqa Shergarh, District Sahiwal, to deprive one Saeed s/o Dherwal of land allotment by writing with his own hand a new 8 pages of the Khasra Girdawari register and interpolating them in place of the original 8 pages, thereby benefiting Karamat Ullah and Ghulam Haider. During the enquiry ordered by the Collector, Sahiwai, the appellant admitted having written the 8 pages but contended that he had no knowledge of the purpose for which Abdul Rehman was getting him to copy out the pages.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that he was no longer Patwari of Halqa Shergarh when the interpolation was made by him. It was also submitted while admitting the interpolation, that the corresponding change was not made in the Roznamcha Waqiati, which is written simultaneously with the Khasra Girdawart, and had the appellant any bad intention of tampering with the revenue record, as alleged, he would have amended the Khasra Girdawari also. In the order dated 20th October, 1977 the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan, stated his conviction that the appellant had actually made the interpolation during his own tenure as Halqa Patwari, and he acquitted Abdul Rehman of the charge of interpolation and tampering with record. Whereas in his report dated 31st October, 1976 the EAC, as Enquiry Officer, stated it a fact that the misdemeanour had taken place during the tenure of Abdul Rehman who was considered equally guilty along with the appellant. Moreover, the Additional Commissioner disposed of the appeal of Mohammad Sarwar, the appellant, in a short order dated 27th October, 1977 adding that the order in respect of Abdul Rehman dated 20th October, 1977 was to be read along with that short order.

After hearing the parties we are of the view that the appeal merits to be accepted on the short ground‑that the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan was not competent to hear the appeal before him. We are not shown any order delegating to the Addl. Commissioner (Cons) the power of hearing service appeals against the orders of the Collector which, according to the relevant Delegation of Power Rules, item No. 24, are to be heard by the Commissioner concerned.

In view of the above, we feel that the appellant is justified in assailing the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), as incompetent. We consequently remand the case to the Commissioner, Multan Division, the competent authority in the matter.

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.