Find a Lawyer

Case No. 81/1207 of 1981, decided on 4th September, 1982.

‑‑S. 4‑Appeal against dismissal due to misconduct of wilful absence‑Order found to have been passed by authority not competent to do so‑Order set aside‑Case remanded for proceeding afresh if deemed fit by competent authority‑Nothing to be paid for intervening period after re‑instatement‑Appellant a confirmed revenue Patwari working in Consolidation branch dismissed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)‑‑Collector and competent authority in his case, held, would be Assistant Commissioner and not Additional Deputy Commissioner.

Syed Hussain Abbas Rizvi for Appellant.

Maroon‑ur‑Rishid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent:

. ‑Munshi Muhammad Akram, ex- Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act of 1974 against the order dated 17‑12‑1979 passed by the Collector/ Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala whereby he was dismissed from service and against the order dated 29‑1‑1981 passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, by virtue of which his appeal was rejected. He has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted as Patwari in the Consolidation Branch, he was proceeded against under Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 for misconduct on account of his wilfully absence. The record shows that despite repeated notices under Rules 6 (3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules the appellant did not respond and ultimately the authority proceeded ex parte against the appellant and passed the impugned order dismissing him from service. His appeal also failed as being barred by time. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the original order of dismissal from service passed by the Collector/Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that originally the appellant was appointed as officiating Patwari on 1‑E‑1960 and remained posted as Patwari Consolida tion throughout his service till the date of his dismissal. As such he has been competently dismissed from service by the Add]. Deputy Commis sioner (Consolidation)/Collector.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case carefully We have ‑examined the service book of the appellant which contains an endorsement by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala dated 29‑9‑1969 whereby he was confirmed as Patwari by the Collector's order dated 29‑9‑1969. We have also seen the register of accepted candidate Patwaris and have found that his name is entered at No. 71. Against his entry, there is an endorsement that he was enlisted a candidate Patwari on 23‑9‑1962 and was confirmed by the order dated 23‑9‑1969. The appellant eras also placed on record the report of Sadar Khanungo, Gujranwala confirming the facts that the appellant was confirmed as Patwari on 29‑8‑1969. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was a revenue Patwari and he could only be proceeded under Efficiency and Discipline Rules by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector concerned i. e. Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad. We have taken this view in many cases including Appeal No. 445/80, decided on 30‑9‑1980 and Appeal No 33/526 of 1980 and 398/529 of 1979 that in case of Patwari the Collector concerned would be the Assistant Commissioner of the Sub‑Division concerned ; as such we hold that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed by an authority not competent to do so.

5 In view of the above analysis we proceeded to accept the appeal and set aside both the impugned orders as illegal and void. The appellant shall be reinstated into service. We remand the case to the Assistan Commissioner/Collector, Wazirabad to take action as he may deem fit in the circumstances of this case. Since the conduct of the appellant is not unblemished so he shall not be paid any thing as pay etc., from the date of his dismissal to the date of his re‑instatement. However, there will be not order as to costs.

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.