Find a Lawyer

Case No. 404/1841 of 1982, decided on 2nd May, 1982.

‑‑‑ Sched., Item 24‑Authority competent to impose major penalty upon Patwari‑Collector concerned‑Settlement Officer‑Patwari transferred under control of Settlement Officer during settlement operation‑Settlement Officer, in circumstances, held, assumed power of Collector in district and competent to impose major penalty upon Patwari under his control.

Masud Ahmad Riaz and Sardar A. Khalid for Appellants.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑ Muhammad Safdar Khan, Consolidation Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded, Consolidation Officer/Collector, Sialkot, Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his order of dismissal passed by the Collector/Settlement Officer, be set aside as being without jurisdiction and even otherwise on merits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was Sub‑Inspector in the Co‑operative Department was transferred from Co‑operative Depart ment and absorbed as Consolidation Patwari. There was a complaint against the appellant made by certain right‑holder of the village and the appellant was duly charge‑sheeted. Enquiry was conducted and out of four charges, charges Nos. (a) and (b) were withdrawn and for charges (c) and (d), he was held guilty on the basis of which the impugned order was passed, by the Settlement Officer ;Collector Sialkot. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who did not interfere with the order of respondent No.1. The appellant agitated the matter before the Member, Board of Revenue, who also dismissed the revision vide order dated 18th January, 1975 with the observation that if he is not satisfied he should approach the Government for redress. He approached the Government for redress through a mercy petition. However, there is nothing on the record to show that he prayed for mercy to some higher authority or he was all the time begging for the same from Allah Almighty during his prayer. However, this appeal has been filed on 8th August, 1982.

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

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the very competency of the order on the ground that according to Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, in column 24, Collector would be the competent authority and Collector concerned would be a person, empowered to inflict major penalty and A. D. C. (Consolidation) would be person to inflict minor penalty. He has elaborated this point by submitting that in fact word concerned' in this case means not the Collector of the District but A. D. C. (C) who was so enjoying the power of Collector. With regard to the merits of the case, he has submitted that the case against the appellant is a case of misreading of evidence therefore, the same cannot be sustained against him.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal, on the face of it, is hopelessly time‑barred as the original impugned order was passed in 1971 and the last order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, pertained to the year 1975. According to the learned District Attorney, under the rules or in the eye of law the appellant was not required to proceed further except to approach the Tribunal in the year 1975 as the same w as very much in existence.

7. With regard to the jurisdictional point, it has been submitted that said district was under Settlement operation and the entire field staff had merged into the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer who was wholly the incharge of the working of that district with regard to the revenue administration and be would be the Collector to punish any person with major penalty. According to learned District Attorney the appellant has been dismissed by the Collector/Settlement Officer therefore, this order cannot be considered in any manner, without jurisdiction. He 'has also relied on Item‑24 of the Delegation of Powers Rules of 1958, of course not agreeing with the interpretation so made by the learned counsel for the appellant. With regard to the merits of the case, learned District Attorney has submitted that he would not advert to the same as the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation only.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the argument so advanced by the parties and without going into the merits of the case, we' will first of all advert to the legal point so made before us. As regards point of limitation, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. Our reasons for arriving at on this decision is based on the record of this case. We do not find that the appellant came before this Tribunal after the year 1975, when his revision was finally disposed of by the Member, Board of Revenue, we will also not allow the appellant to take advantage of imaginary redress, which he might be seeking in his mind from the authorities, because there is nothing on the record to show that he made any representation although not allowed under the rules, to any authority besides to Member, Board of Revenue.

9. With regard to the point of jurisdiction, we have seen the Delegation of Powers schedule and have taken into consideration of the arguments so advanced by the parties and are inclined to agree with the learned District Attorney on the ground that the authority empowered to impose major penalty as given, is Collector concerned. The word concerned' according to the learned counsel for the appellant, means the A. D. C. (C) but according to the learned District Attorney mean Settlement Officer, a fact which cannot be denied and the dispute is that at the time of settlement operation of Revenue Department, the staff, in whatever capacity it was working, stood fully transferred under the control of Settlement Officer and in this case he assumed the power of Collector in the district as in the case of the appellant, the Collector has awarded him the major penalty, therefore, we do not see any illegality of the order so passed.

10. In view of the above analysis of the ease, we do not see any merit in this case which is dismissed. There will no order as to costs.

A. B. 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.