Find a Lawyer

Case No. 192/1651 of 1982, decided on 7th December, 1982.

‑‑R. 6 (3) read with Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules, 1974, S. 11‑Dismissal on charge of misconduct after affording show cause and personal hearing‑Appeal rejected by departmental authority‑Contention that departmental authority after getting criminal case registered against appellant could not proceed under rule 6 (3) not accepted by Tribunal.

Syed Jamshed Ali for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Syed Zamir Ka7im Shah, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Commissioner, Sargodba Division, Sargodha, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 21st March, 1981, passed by the Respondent No. 2, dismissing him from service and order, dated 27th March, 1982, passed by the respondent No. 1, maintaining the said order and rejecting the appeal of the appellant, be set saide and he be re‑instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Field Kanungo Circle Midh Ranjha, tehsil Bhalwal, district Sargodha, attested mutation Nos, 405, 406, 407 and 408 in collusion with Mahboob Elahi, Patwari, village Taliwala and the parties concerned, on the basis of consent decrees, which land in fact, belonged to the Central Government and has never been shown in R. L. II or in the existing Revenue record. This act of the appellant was detected during consolidation operation Learned Commissioner issued him a show‑cause notice dispensing with regular enquiry and called upon him to explain to why major penalty should not be imposed upon him. He submitted reply and was heard in person. The Commissioner did not accept the plea of the appellant and passed his dismissal order. He filed an appeal before the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, who after going through the entire facts of this case and looking into the parawise comments furnished by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, dismissed his appeal. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have carefully perused the record of this case with their assistance.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that under rule 11 of the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules, 1974, once a criminal case is registered against a public servant, it was only the committee which have to decide whether the concerned public servant is to be prosecuted o proceeded against departmentally or case against him is to be dropped. According to the learned counsel once the case has been registered against the appellant at the behest of the respondent, he cannot proceed against the appellant as provided under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servant (Efficiency an4 Discipline) Rules, 1975. He has also challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner on the ground that he acted both as Authority as well as Authorised Officer, which was against the spirit of the, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and the Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the appellant had to act on the decree of a Civil Court whether fraudulent or not and was legally bound under section 42, clause 7 of the Land Revenue Act to get the mutation attested, therefore, no action can be taken against him in this behalf. Learned counsel has further assailed the validity of the action as according to him; he had no access to R. L. II, which was sealed in the Treasury in the double lock, therefore, the appellant was fully entitled to accept the copy of R. L. 11 so presented before him.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that even if it is conceded for argument sake that appellant was bound to proceed with the verification of mutation under section 42 (7) of the Land Revenue Act, even then it was his duty to satisfy that the record was correct in accordance with the entries as incorporated in Jama Bandi 'Zere‑kar'. According to the learned District Attorney the very fact that nothing was mentioned about the ownership of the persons in the Jama Bandi Zere‑kar' he was bound to refer the matter to his superiors. In failing to do so appellant had failed to discharge his duties. By keeping quiet and going ahead with the verification he, thus, was a party to the shady deal.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused carefully the judgment rendered by the learned Commissioner as well as by the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and find from lama Bandi 'Zere‑kar' as well as earlier or so produced before us that the name of Mehr Din, nowhere figured as owner of the said property but instead what we find is that the Government is mentioned in these two records of rights as Multahin' and the owners are the some different persons who had mortgaged this area to non‑Muslims. In the face of this established fact on the record, we are in full agreement with the judgment so delivered by the learned Commissioner as well as learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, that the appellant acted in a manner in which he had no justification. We are also aware of the fact that the instructions laid down under the Land Record Manual, clearly make it obligatory for such officers to verify the entries in the mutation with the entries as given in the Jama Bandi (record of rights) and then to give a certificate that the mutation was so entered in accordance with the entries of the said documents.

8. With regard to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Commissioner cannot proceed with the matter once the case has been registered against the appellant, it would be sufficient to say that he can enter into departmental enquiry against the appellant as nothing in the rules forbids him to do so. We have also taken into consideration the objections with regard to the role of the Commissioner which he played, both as Authority' as well as Authorised Officer and find that the same was fully in accordance with the Delegation of Powers Rules.

9. In view of the above we do not feel any justification to interfere with the two-well‑considered judgments of the learned Commissioner as well as learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. There will be no order as to costs.

M. I.

Appeal 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.