SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other
This petition arises from the dismissal of a revenue Patwari by the Settlement Officer, Multan, acting under powers conferred by a government notification. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that the Settlement Officer lacked the legal competence to dismiss him because the petitioner was not involved in settlement work and his services were not placed at the Settlement Officer's disposal. The core legal question was whether the notification conferring the powers of a Collector upon the Settlement Officer was limited only to matters concerning settlement work, thereby rendering the dismissal order ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the notification was widely expressed and conferred all powers of a Collector (except those under Chapter VI of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887) upon the Settlement Officer, without restricting his jurisdiction to settlement-related duties. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the Settlement Officer acted within his jurisdiction as a Collector. The key principle established is that where a notification confers the full powers of a Collector upon an officer without explicit limitation to specific departmental functions, that officer may exercise administrative powers, including disciplinary authority, over subordinates within the district.
- Does a notification conferring the powers of a Collector upon a Settlement Officer limit that officer's jurisdiction solely to settlement-related work?
- Can a Settlement Officer exercise disciplinary powers over a Patwari if the notification conferring Collector powers does not explicitly restrict those powers to settlement duties?
- Is a Settlement Officer who is granted the powers of a Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 subordinate to the District Collector in the exercise of those powers?
- Section 27(1), Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887
- Section 27(2), Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887
- Section 105(1), Punjab Tenancy Act 1887
- Section 105(2), Punjab Tenancy Act 1887
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM J.-The petitioner, a revenue Patwari, was on 3-1-1961 charge-sheeted by the District Collector, Multan for misconduct, following which an inquiry, was held and on 28-10- 1962 he was dismissed from service. This order of dismissal, after unsuccessful appeal and revision, was ultimately set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue, vide his order in review dated 10-11- 1965, _ on the short ground that the order of dismissal was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) who was not competent to exercise powers of suspension, removal or dismissal of Patwaris and the order passed was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The learned Member Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Multan for further action.
2. After the remand order, the petitioner was again dismissed from service by respondent No. 3 Shaikh Maqbool Ahmad, the Settlement Officer, Multan, vide his order dated 15-3-1966 which order was maintained both appeal as well as in revision vide orders dated 12-5-1966 and 12-1-1968 respectively. This order of dismissal was challenged in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 586/5 of 1969 on the short ground that the Settlement Officer, he being neither the appointing authority nor dismissing authority of the petitioner nor in any manner concerned with the charges on which an inquiry was held against the petitioner. It was not disputed in the High Court that under the relevant Rules, the Delegation of Powers Rules in respect of Board of Revenue, for the Patwaris in Lahore, Multar, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Bahawalpur, D. I. Khan and Peshawar Divisions, the Collector concerned was the appointing authority and the authority to suspend, reduce in rank, retire compulsorily, remove or dismiss from service. The Department, however, relied upon a notification dated 1-8-1962 under which the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred by sub--sections (1) and (2) of section 27 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and by subsections (1) and (2) of section 105 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, was pleased to confer upon Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, C. S. P., Settle--ment Officer, Multan District, all the powers of a Collector under the said Act (with the exception of Chapter VI of the former Act) to be exercised within the local limits of the Multan District, and further that in the exercise of these powers, Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, C. S. P., was not subject to the control of the Collector of the Multan District. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the dismissal order made by the Officer was within jurisdiction for the order was passed by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad in his capacity as a Collector, and the petition was, therefore, dismissed.
3. In support of this leave petition, Raja Abdul Razzaque, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a limited contention and that was, that the petitioner's services were never placed at the disposal of the Settlement Officer nor was the petitioner in any way connected with the settlement work which was undertaken in the District in August, 1962 and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Settlement Officer, in his capacity as Collector was not legally competent to dismiss the petitioner. The argument overlooks the fact that the respondent No. 3 was not appointed as a Collector for the disposal of settlement work only but was Collector for all purposes other than for the purpose of revenue collection under Chapter VI of the Land Revenue Act. We cannot read any limitation in the notification, so widely expressed, that the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 was limited to dealing with the Officers concerned with settlement work only, for not only he had been empowered under the notification to exercise all powers of the Collector in the District of Multan except for powers contained in Chapter VI A but in exercise of such powers he was not subordinate to the Collector of the District. We have also noticed that the petitioner was not dismissed from service in connection with any matter relating to collection of revenue which is the subject-matter of Chapter VI of the Land Revenue Act.
4. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.