Find a Lawyer

Cases Nos. 267/1656 and 396/1959 of 1982, decided on 9th June, 1983.

‑‑‑R. 6(3) read with r. 8‑‑Dispensation with regular enquiry in cases where civil servants were dismissed /reduced in rank on charges of misconduct‑‑Contention challenging competence of authority repelled‑ Matters examined thoroughly after issuance of detailed and self‑contained notices‑‑No prejudice caused to appellants who were found guilty of contradictory statements, carelessness, dereliction of duties and rightly distinguished for awarding punishment.

Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan for Appellant No. 1.

Ch. Mushtaq Masud for Appellant No. 2.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

. ‑‑Bashir Ahmad Shah ex -Patwari has filed Appeal No. 267/1656 of 1982 under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded 'the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Deputy Commis sioner/Collector, Mianwali as respondents while the other appellant Sultan Jan ex‑Consolidation Kanungo in his Appeal No. 396/1959 of 1982 has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Mianwali, District Mianwali and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha as respondents. By virtue of his appeal Bashir Ahmad Shah has prayed that the order of his dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Mianwali dated 15‑12‑1981 and the order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division dated 15‑5‑1982 be set aside and he be reinstated into service. While the other appellant has requested to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Mianwali, dated 15‑12‑1981. He has also requested that the order dated 3‑7‑1982 passed by the Commissioner whereby the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Collector vide order dated 15‑12‑1981 to that of reduction in rank of Patwari be set aside and he be restored to the rank of Consolidation Kanungo with all back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during the inspection of Dhal Bachh of village Muzaffarpur Janubi by the Sadar Kanungo, it was observed that no Fard Bachh was being prepared for the said village on the plea that the entire crop sown in that village in the land on which the land revenue was to be assessed by the Revenue Department had been damaged totally. It had also come to light that both the appellants had given details of Kharaba contrary to the rules through forgery, fraud and caused a loss of about Rs.31,440 to the exchequre. In this background the Deputy Ccmmissioner Collector Mianwali decided to initiate the departmental enquiry against bath the appellants and directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation, Mianwali to proceed with the enquiry, who dispensed with the regular enquiry and served show‑cause notice with the meanings of rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 upon the appellants to show‑cause notice as to why one of the major penalty be not imposed upon them on the charges of misconduct and preparation of wrong record of Kharaba/Khasra Girdawari. The appellants submitted reply to the show‑cause notice and were also heard. On the request of the appellant, Bashir Ahmad Shah, the Authorised Officer also recorded the statement of Mehar Muhammad ex‑Assistant Patwari (Consolidation) who stated that he had prepared the statement of Kharaba according to the directions of the appellant Bashir Ahmad Shah. Both the appellants were heard by the authorised officer, who submitted his report dated 11‑11‑1981 to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner in his turn issued a notice under rule 8 of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 whereby the appellants were called upon to show‑cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service in view of the proved allegations and recommendations of the authorised officer which were reproduced by him in the said notice. The Deputy Commissioner heard the appellants and considered their written reply as well. However, he was not satisfied with the defence of the appellants and dismissed both of them by a single order impugned before us. Both the appellants filed departmental appeals before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha. The appeal of the Bashir Ahmad Shah was dismissed while the appeal of Sultan Jan was partly accepted to the extent that the Commissioner converted the penalty of dismissal from service to that of reduction from the rank of Consolidation Kanungo to that of Patwari. Hence these appeals. Since these appeals have arisen out of the same facts and they also impugn the order of the Deputy Commissioner of the same date so these are being disposed of simultaneously as the common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals.

3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by both the learned counsel of the appellants that the authorised officer has not performed the duty so cast upon him under the rules in which he did not propose any penalty to the authority. It has further been argued that according to the Delegation of Power Rules, the Deputy Commis sioner/ Collector and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) are not the authority and the authorised officer for both the appellant because they were basically Patwari belonging to the Revenue cadre and the Assistant Commissioner concerned should have acted only as an authority and authorised officer for both the appellants. It has further been argued that according to the rules and instructions contained in the Land Revenue Act, Punjab Land Records Manual and the Dastural Amal of District Mianwali, it was not the duty of the Patwari to enter the Kharaba in the Khasara Girdawari. It has further been argued by Bashir Ahmad Shah, Patwari that he had not prepared the statement of Kharaba himself but prepared by the Assistant Patwari while Sultan Jan has argued that he has simply verified the entries recorded by the Patwari. The learned District Attorney has controverted these arguments and has submitted that during the proceedings before the departmental authorities, both the appellants were blaming each other for this misconduct which otherwise is proved on record. He has also submitted that according to the rules and instructions so relied upon by the appellants, it is the duty of the Patwari to prepare a statement of Kharaba which was to be verified by the Kanungo. They have admittedly failed to perform this duty properly. , It has further been argued that they are guilty of forging the record by showing excess crops in more fields as having been damaged than their actual number. Regarding legal objections, it has been argued that Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) and the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Mianwali have rightly proceeded against the appellants as authorised officer and the authority. Regarding the objection that the authorised officer did not propose any penalty while submitting his report to the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, it has been argued that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants because the Deputy Commissioner himself had issued a detailed and self‑contained notice upon the appellants, as well as even the authorised officer while issuing notice to the appellants had clearly stated that he had proposed to impose major penalty.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. First of all we would dispose off the legal objections. We have consulted the Board of Reverue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958. According to item No. 24 the appointing authority and the competent authority to suspend reduce in rank, retire compulsorily remove or dismiss the Consolidation Kanungo/Consolidation Patwari has been mentioned as Collector concerned. While the authority competent to award other punishment is prescribed as on Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) concerned for these employees. According to Rules 2 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, issued vide Notification dated 13th March, 1975, the various authorities empowered to award major punishments under the various Delegation of Power Rules, are, in respect of Civil Servants to whom they are competent to award major punishment are to exercise the power of "Authority" under the rules and the authorities empowered to award minor punishment under the said Delegation of Power Rules are in respect of Civil Servants to whom they are competent to award minor punishment are authorised to exercise the powers of "Authorised Officer" under the Rules. So we hold, that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) and the Collector Mianwali have validly and legally acted as the authorised officer and as an authority in these cases. We repel the arguments of the appellants in this behalf. For the disposal of the other legal objection we have consulted the record. While issuing notice to the appellants, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) has clearly stated in un‑imbiguous terms to show cause as to why major punishment be not imposed upon them. These words in the notice make it emphatically clear that the authorised officer had proposed award of major punishment upon the appellants otherwise he would himself have inflicted minor punishment. Since the authorised office had himself determined, the imposition of a major penalty, so we do not find any force in these arguments of the learned counsels of the appellants; which is contrary to the record. Even otherwise the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Mianwali seems to have been very cautious in these cases because he served a very comprehensive notice proposing imposition of a major penalty. So no prejudice has 'been caused to the appellants because they fully knew that they were likely to be imposed one of the major penalty enumerated Rules 4 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Thus, we also repel this argument.

With regard to the merits of the case we have examined the record as well Bashir Ahmad Shah, Patwari, who conducted the Girdawari of village Muzaffarpur Janubi for the crop of Rabi 1981 from 24‑3‑1981 to 1‑5‑1981 but he did not prepare any list of Kharaba upto 11‑5‑1981, although the Girdawar had checked the Girdawari work of the said Patwari or. 28‑4‑1981, 4‑5‑1981 and 10/11‑5‑1981 and had specifically instructed him to prepare the list of Kharaba. The appellant Bashir Ahmad Shah had concluded the Girdawari work on 1‑5‑1981 but in the Naqsha Jinswar, he showed the Kharaba area to be 114 Acres as on 2‑5‑1981. When village Book (Lal Kitab) was consulted, it was observed that the appellant had originally recorded the area of Kharaba as 114 Acres but by interpolation changed this figure 4044 Acres out of the total cultivable area of 10847 Acres of the said village. In the Fehrist Kharaba, the appellant has shown the area of Kharaba as 8347 Acres. All these facts and figures available in the record clearly show that Bashir Ahmad Shah, Patwari has rightly been held guilty of the charges levelled against him. With regard to Sultan Jan ex‑Consolidation Kanungo, the record revealed that Register Jinawar prepared by the Patwari Halqa in May 1981 showing Kharaba as 114 Acres was countersigned by the appellant, although the Fehrist Kharaba shows this area to be 8347 Acres which list was prepared by the Patwari. This Fehrist Kharaba was to be completed on 1‑5‑1981 at the time of conclusion of the Girdawari but the appellant Sultan Jan failed to point out during his 'purtal' conducted from 28‑4‑1981 to 11‑5‑1981 that Fehrist Kharaba was not being prepared progressively. Thus, it can safely be held that the Inspection notes recorded on Fehrist; Kharaba were recorded at some time much later after the conclusion of Khasara Girdawari and these entries are ficticious. The appellant Sultan Jan has also failed to inspect the Lal Kitab where the area under Kharaba was recorded as 4044 Acres by the Patwari which resulted in the non‑preparation of Dhal Bachh by the Patwari. When the cases of Patwari and Kanungo are placed in juxtaposition with each other it becomes clear that Patwari was more responsible for the contradictory statements with regard to the extent of Kharaba in the village, while the appellant Sultan Jan is guilty of carelessness, negligence and dereliction of duties. Thus, we hold that although this appellant was guilty of the allegations, yet the Commissioner had rightly distinguished his case from the case of co‑accused Patwari. We have also gone through the various provisions of Land Record Manual, Dastural Amal of Mianwali District and the Land Revenue Act. We find that it was the duty of the Patwari to prepare the Fehrist Kharaba simultaneously with the preparation of Register Girdawari. Thus, there is no force in the arguments of the 1st appellant's counsel that it was not the duty of the Patwari to incorporate the Kharaba or prepare the Kharaba lists simultaneously with the Girdawari.

5. In view of the above detailed discussion, we do not find any force in these appeals which are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

M. I.

Appeals 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.