Find a Lawyer

Case No. 742/1137 of 1984, decided on 13th May, 1985.

‑‑‑Rr. 2(1)(b), (c) & 2(3)‑‑Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, Revenue Department Notification No. 11481‑69/5123- E(F)‑VI, dated 15‑11‑1969‑‑"Authority" and "Authorised Officer"‑‑ Assistant Commissioner competent to act as Authority and Authorised Officer against Patwaris‑‑Major penalty of dismissal from service imposed by Assistant Commissioner‑‑Plea that no one declared as Authorised Officer as such proceedings initiated and conducted by Assistant Commis sioner in capacity as Authority were not proper‑‑Plea repelled.

Pervaiz I. Mir for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Dost Mohammad, ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department, Lahore, the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Assistant Commissioner, Shahpur Saddar Sub‑Division, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned orders, dated 21‑10‑1981, 20‑3‑1983 and 3‑5‑1984, be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with full interests and benefits of service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Patwari Halqa Dherowal, Tehsil Shahpur entered an inheritance mutation No. 97 of one Mohammad Zaman son of Iraq, caste Kandan and got the same sanctioned by the Revenue Officer Halqa on, 14‑12‑1977, in favour of his sons, Mohammad Hayat, Mohammad Nawaz, Khuda Bakhsh and Sarfraz in equal shares. The date of the death of the propositus was shown as 25‑11‑1977. Later on it came to notice that the said Mohammad Zaman was still alive and that the inheritance mutation was got sanctioned maliciously by the appellant. A criminal case under section 419/420/424/ 468, P.P.C. was got registered against him and he was proceeded against departmentally. The A.C./Collector, Shahpur served him with a show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and a Magistrate 1st Class, Shahpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted a detailed inquiry and vide his report dated 28‑9‑1981, concluded that the allegation against the appellant stood proved. The A.C./Collector Shahpur after hearing the appellant and considering the report vide his impugned order, removed him from service from 21‑10‑1981. The appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who rejected the same on 20‑3‑1983, with the observation that the charges against the appellant stood proved without any shadow of doubt in the enquiry conducted by Mohammad Nawaz Makhdoom E.A.C./R.M., Shahpur, as well as he stood convicted in criminal case also. He filed revision petition against the said order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, before Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, who after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the orders of the lower Courts, found that there was no case to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts. In this connection he upheld the orders passed by the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha. 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 perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the orders of the learned A. C. /Collector, Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and of learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, respectively were illegal, unsustainable in law and void ab initio being the result of misreading and non‑reading of evidence available on record. He also challenged the proceedings conducted against the appellant as against rule 2 (1) (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, by submitting that no Authorised Officer was appointed by the A. C. /Collector and all proceedings were conducted by him in the capacity of being Authority. He has challenged the order of removal as order non‑speaking in nature and without assigning any reason in the same.

6. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in Jalsa‑e‑Aam at the spot on 14‑12‑1977, after a year on the verification of Ghulam Muhammad and Ahmad Khan, Pattidars of the village, therefore, no exception could be taken to the same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if at all any body was guilty of the misconduct, it was Naib‑Tehsildar who attested the mutation in Jalsa‑e‑Aara and not the Patwari (appellant) who just entered the same.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the legal objection was misconcieved as according to the Board of Revenue, Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, read with Government of West Pakistan Revenue Department Notification No. 11481‑69/5123‑E (F)I VI, dated 15‑11‑1969, the Collectors i.e. Assistant Commissioners were competent to take action against Patwaris as 'Authority' as well as Authorised Officer'. According to sub‑rule (3) of Rule 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Assistant Commissioners are 'Authority' as well as 'Authorised Officer' in respect of Patwaris of their sub‑division. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the appellant entered report No. 138 in his Roznamcha Waqiati that he had learnt through reliable sources that Zaman, right‑holder had died. Learned District Attorney has submitted that while doing so, he should have consulted the register of 'deaths' of Chaukidar but on the converse the appellant entered the said event in Roznamcha Waqiati and that in the register of mutations was made by the appellant of his own accord and was based on ill‑motives. With regard to the plea of the appellant that he has been condemned unheard, it was submitted that the appellant was afforded opportunity of personal hearing by the Assistant Commissioner and had been attending the Court of Commissioner and similarly his counsel was heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that two concurrent findings of facts were rightly upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, as in revision such like concurrent findings of facts are always maintained. Similarly with regard to the legal objection about the procedure adopted in his case, we find that no exception can be taken to it, because under the C Delegation of Powers Rules so mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment, the A. C./Collector can act as Authority as well as Authorised Officer.

9. With regard to the merits of the case, we have also seen Roznamcha Waqiati as well as mutation concerned and find that the same was entered by the appellant without consulting the register of deaths as well as by passing the Lambardar of the village, who would have been a right person to verify whether Mohammad Zaman had‑died or not. With regard to the plea of the appellant that it was Naib‑Tehsildar who should‑have been held guilty for attesting the mutation in Jalsa‑e‑Aam, it would be sufficient to say that initial mischief was committed on the part of the appellant who being the Patwari Halqa was fully under obligation and responsible to verify whether the person so declared died had in fact died or not. It was on his entry of mutation concerned that Naib Tehsildar acted in good faith and accepted the report of Patwari as true. The attestation of Pattidarans has no bearing in this case, as it was the duty of the Patwari to produce Lambardar at the relevant time. We have further noted that the appellant has been convicted by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and thus would be a convict person for all purposes and unsuitable to be retained in service. The cognizance of this fact by the learned Commissioner does not call for any comments.

10. The result is that we do not find any justification to interfere with the well considered orders of learned A.C. /Collector. Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue. being based on thorough enquiry by the Resident Magistrate, Muhammad Nawaz Makhdoom as all the aspects were fully thrashed by him from all angles. The appeal is dismissed as being without any merits. There will be no order as to costs.

A.E.

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.