Find a Lawyer

‑‑Rr. 4 & 8‑Penalty‑Quantum of punishment‑Patwari charged of making unauthorisedly incorrect entry in Roznamcha Waqiati regarding self‑cultivation‑Charge proved but neither any mala fide nor ulterior motive attributed‑Accused himself realising his mistake making entry that cultivation matter was disputed‑Mitigating circumstances, held, did not call for extreme penalty of dismissal in circumstances‑Penalty of dismissal altered to that of withholding of increments for 3 years with cumulative effect by Service Tribunal‑ Intervening period ordered to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay on re‑instatement‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974); S. 4.

Syed Jamshed Ali for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER)

.‑Muhammad Yousaf ex‑Patwari of Gujranwala has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and the Assistant Commissioner /Collector, Sadar Sub -Division, Gujranwala as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 11‑2‑1982 and 22‑5‑1982 be set aside and he be re‑instated into service with all the back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Patwari Halqa Talwandi Kahajoorwali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, respondent No., 2 served him with a charge‑sheet alongwith the statement of allegations to the effect that while he was posted as a Patwari Circle Talwandi Kahajoorwali in the year 1978, he with ulterior motive, made an incorrect Girdawari in the name of Habib Ullah showing the land comprising Khasra Nos. 740,744 and 745 (9 kanals) as under the self cultivation of the said Habib Ullah vendee in Kharif 1978 although the land was being cultivated by Raj Muhammad and the necessary entry to that effect was also made. It was further alleged that due to the incorrect Girdawari in the name of Habib Ullah, he trespassed into these fields on 8‑12‑1978 and ploughed the wheat and gram crop sown by Raj Muhammad thus caused wrongful loss to Raj Muhammad and unnecessarily dragged him into litigation. The appellant received the charge‑sheet and submitted his reply claiming that he had entered the name of Habib Ullah vendee correctly according to the position at the spot. The Assistant Commissioner appointed Magistrate Mr. Ata Muhammad as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations. The Enquiry Officer examined Raj Muhammad, Muhammad Sadiq, Nasrullah Khan, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Rafique, Mushtaque Ahmad, Allah Ditta, Liaquat Ali, Patwari and Kh. Abdul Rub, H. V. C. as P. Ws. and recorded the statements of Manzoor Ahmad and Ghulam Rasool in the defence of the appellant. The Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges and submitted his report to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala who served a show cause notice under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and discipline) Rules upon the appellant and also heard him in person. As the Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied with the defence of the appellant, so he passed the impugned order and dismissed him from service vide order dated 11‑2‑1982. The appellant submitted an appeal against it before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore which was also rejected on 22‑5‑1982. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that he had conducted the Girdawari of the fields in dispute on the spot on 14‑10‑1978. Raj Muhammad had been cultivating these fields in the past as a tenant at. the will of Mst. Emania Bibi, so he drew the. Wattar' in the column of Girdawari of Kharif 1978 to show that the land was cultivated by Raj Muhammad. However, in the meanwhile Habib Ullah informed him that he had since purchased the land from Mst. Emania Bibi and Raj Muhammad had delivered the possession to him amicably and the crops had been sown by him, so he requested for the correction of the Girdawari. It has further been submitted that the appellant believing the version of the Habib Ullah made an entry as Khud Kashat Mushtary, in the same column and entred a report in the Roznamcha Waqiati bearing No. 56 on 18‑10‑1972, which was duly verified by the Girdawar. It has further been argued that at the time of Girdawari of Rabi 1979, he learned that there is a dispute between Habib Ullah and Raj Muhammad regarding Girdawari of Kharif 1978 so he made an entry of the said field showing as "Mutnaza Kashat" i.e., disputed cultivation. The appellant has also taken a plea that it was he who had prompted Raj Muhammad to file an application to the Collector for the correction of the Girdawari and in fact he had accompanied Raj Muhammad to the Courts for the purpose. Thus, he concluded that there was no mala fide or ulterior motive on behalf of the appellant to make entry of Girdawari in the name of Habib Ullah which was made according to the position at the spot.

4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has' mainly relied on the revenue record including Khasra Girdawari Register of village Talwandi Kahajoorwali and submitted that when the appellant had entered the Khasra Girdawari in the name of Raj Muhammad, thereafter he was not competent to change it in the name of Habib Ullah. He has also argued that the fact that the appellant had entered a report in the Roznamcha Waqiati that the cultivation of these fields is in dispute clearly shows that the appellant fully knew that he was making an interpolation in the record to favour Habib Ullah, as such he has been dealt with properly.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. We have also examined the Register of Khasra Girdawari and Roznamcha Waqiati which are relevant for the disposal of the case. Register Khasra Girdawari clearly shows that the land comprising of Khasras Nos. 470, 744 and 745 were in the cultivating possession of Raj Muhammad till Kharif 1978. Even during Girdawari of Kharif 1978, the appellant has shown him as a tenant by drawing "Wattar" in the relevant column. The relevant column also shows that the appellant has made an entry in red ink' therein as self‑cultivation of vendee Habib Ullah (Khud Kashat Mushtari). Thus, it is abundantly proved from these documents that the appellant after having shown Raj Muhammad as a tenant in Kharif 1978 showed Habib Ullah vendee in cultivating possession which is against the rules and beyond the competency of the appellant. Now we will examine the oral evidences. We have also examined the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer. These witnesses are consistent on the point that Raj Muhammad had been cultivating that land in dispute as a tenant‑at‑will of Mst. Eminia Bibi and the crops in Kharif 1978 were sown by him. It is also in evidence that the appellant had tempered with the Girdawari and had shown Habib Ullah vendee in cultivating possession. Thus, taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidences we are of the considered view that the charge against the appellant has rightly been held to be proved against the appellant. It is also proved on the record that Raj Muhammad made an application to the Collector for the correction of the Girdawari and appeal was also filed before the Commissioner in this behalf ; thus due to incorrect Girdawari, Raj Muhammad was dragged into litigation due to incorrect entry made by the appellant. Thus, the second charge is also proved against the appellant.

6. Although it has been held in the early part of our judgment that the charges of interpolation with Khasra Girdawari have been proved against the appellant yet we have found mitigating circumstances in the case which does not call for an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The record shows that the appellant had made an entry to the effect that the cultivation of the land was in dispute and as such he did not make an entry of Girdawari in the name‑on account of either of the parties. We also cannot ignore the fact that the appellant had entred a report No. 56 in the Roznamcha Waqiati on 14‑12‑1978 to show that he had earlier shown Raj Muhammad as a tenant due to a bona fade mistake and in fact it was Habib Ullah vendee who was in cultivating possession of the fields. This report is also attested by the Girdawar as well. It is also in evidence that after having made an entry in the name of Habib Ullah, the appellant realised his mistake and rectified the same. Thus, we feel that the penalty of dismissal from service is unduly harsh and is liable to be varied.

7. In view of the detailed analysis of the facts and the circumstances of the present case we set aside the impugned order of dismissal from service and convert the penalty of dismissal from service to that of withholding increments for three years with cumulative effect. The appellant shall be re‑instated into service but the period during which he remained out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay and he will not be paid anything over and above which he had already received during his suspension period. The appeal is accepted in the terms indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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