Find a Lawyer

Case No. 230/1830 of 1982, decided on 14th December, 1983.

‑‑ R. 6(3)‑Removal from service on charge of temporary embezzle ment‑Contention of betrayal by appellant's representative unautho risedly deputed to collect revenues repelled as serious irregularity‑Order challenged before Tribunal on ground of long service and there being no loss to Government ‑ Held : In view of his checkered service record and admitted temporary embezzlement, appellant deserved no leniency.

Appellant present in person.

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

Muhammad Hayat, ex‑Patwari, Halqa Kotla Syedan, Tehsil Shahpur has filed appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner, Shahpur, the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders passed against him be set aside and the appellant be ordered to be reinstated into service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Muhammad Hayat, ex‑Patwari Halqa Kotla Syedan, Tehsil Shahpur, was charge‑sheeted by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shahpur on the following allega tions:‑

(i) That he, while posted as Patwari Halqa Shahpur was given Dhal Bachhes for the Rabi/Kharif 1.978 harvests, amounting to Rs. 13,938.97 for recovery. He recovered the amount but deposited only Rs. 6,426.61 and misappropriated the remaining amount of Rs. 7,512.30.

(ii) That he recovered an amount of Rs. 907 08 from one Ghulam Murtaza son of Ghulam Mustafa and Khushhal Khan of Mauza Sherpur for the Rabi 1979, Kharif 1979 and Rabi 1980 and issued receipts under his signatures, but failed to deposit the same into the Government Treasury. He thus misappropriated a total of Rs. 8,419.38.

R. M./M. I. C., Shahpur was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry. The appellant was held responsible for misap propriation of Rs. 2,006.13 of land revenue of various harvests by the Enquiry Officer. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Shahpur after hearing the appellant and considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer imposed the major penalty of removal him from Service. He made an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected vide his order dated 6th February, 1981. He also made a revision petition to the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the appellant who has argued his case personally. In nutshell, the appellant has admitted his fault, but he has taken the plea that this was all done by Syed Azhar Hussain Shah, the representative, deputed by him for collection of the land revenue and water rates etc. He was betrayed and kept in dark by his nominee. When this drawback of his representative came to the notice of the appellant, he immediately made arrangements for deposit of the balance amount and thus there was no loss caused to the Government. As no loss has been caused to the Government, the appellant prayed that he should not have been punished so harshly, keeping in view his long service at his credit. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments and submitted that the appellant was directed to collect the land revenue himself and he was not authorised to depute some one else for collection of the land revenue which was a serious irregularity on the part of the appellant. Thus, he is responsible for temporary embezzlement which stood proved from the fact that he deposited the outstanding amount during the course of enquiry and even after the service of show‑cause notice upon him. These facts prove that the appellant is responsible for the temporary embezzlement and has been lawfully and correctly punished for the misconduct on the part of the appellant.

5. I have heard the parties and have also gone through the record. The charge of temporary embezzlement stood proved against the appellant as is clear from the fact that the appellant himself deposited the amount earlier recovered during the course of enquiry and even after the issue of the show‑cause notice to him. This temporary embezzlement has also been acknowledged by the appellant himself before the Authority and during the course of the hearing of this case before me. I have also checked the service record of the appellant which is checkered one. His service book shows that in view of the adverse remarks of last five years, his efficiency bar was not allowed to be crossed due on 1st December, 1979 vide A. C.'s order No. 133‑A. C., dated 5th February, 1981. He was also not allowed to cross the efficiency bar due on 1st December, 1978 vide A. C.'s Order No. 64/A. C., dated 10th January, 1979. His two increments were also stopped without cumulative effect vide A. C.'s Order No. 941/A. C., dated 26th April, 1981. Keeping his this service record in view, the appellant does not deserve any leniency.

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

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.