Find a Lawyer

Case No. 20/74 of 1983, decided on 30th October, 1983.

‑‑‑R.6‑‑Patwari guilty of forgery and tampering with service record----Dismissed from service‑‑Departmental appeals dismissed after affording personal hearing‑‑Tribunal refused to interfere with concurrent findings on fact.

Yousaf Farooq for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Saleh Mohammad, ex- Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against his removal from service vide order dated 15‑6‑1981 of A. C./Collector Jhang, against the appellant and the order of Commissioner Faisalabad and the learned Member Board of Revenue Punjab, dated 19‑9‑1981 and 8‑12‑1982. The appellant has impleaded the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and the A. C./Collector Jhang, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted at Halqa Sultan Lashari District Jhang, tampered with the entries of Mutations Nos.20 and 21 of Mauza Sultan Lashari. Consequently he was proceeded under the E & D Rules and was charge‑sheeted. An enquiry was conducted by Ch. Amir Ali, E. A. C./City Magistrate Jhang who submitted his report on 22‑10‑1980, who held the appellant guilty of the forgery and tampering with the revenue record. For further clarifi cation of the charge, another enquiry was ordered and entrusted to Raja Hassan Akhtar, E.A.C., Jhang, who also held the appellant guilty of the forgery and alterations in the revenue record. In view of the above, he was dismissed from service from 15‑6‑1981. He filed appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed after he was heard at length and after perusal of the said record by the Commissioner. He approached the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who heard the petitioner, read the order of the lower Courts and perused the Parat Sarkar of Mutations Nos.20 and 21, it was found by the learned Member, B.O.R. that the concurrent judgments were justified and there was no reason to interfere with the same.

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

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a grievance that all the courts below, have not taken into consideration the defence so produced by the appellant and have readily accepted the allegations against him that he had made alteration in Parat Sarkar of Mutations Nos.20 and 21 without comparing the same with R.L.‑II. It has been stated that in fact the appellant did not hold the charge of the Halqa at the relevant time and it was somebody else who had committed this alteration prior to the appellant in 1972, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for this alteration.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the judgment of the A.C., Commissioner as well as learned Member, Board of Revenue, and have also taken into account the enquiry so conducted by Raja Hassan Akhtar. The fact of the matter is that it has been found by the learned Assistant Commis sioner, as well as Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue, that the appellant tampered with the entries of Mutations Nos.20 and 21 of Mauza Sultanpur Lashari and the two enquiries so conducted against him, held the appellant guilty of the offence. We have also seen the disputed documents as well as R.L. II which was so produced before us and do not find any strength in the plea of the appellant that all what has been done was done by somebody else and he was not responsible for this act. There is ample evidence on the record to show that the appellant was the only person who was motivated to commit the offence, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings on facts, so arrived at and rightly too, by the learned Assistant Commissioner, learned Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue. After looking into the record ourselves, we do not find any reason to say that the conclusion arrived at by these three officers of the Revenue Department were exceptionable.

7. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any force. However, 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.