MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, SUB-DIVISION

This is an appeal against dismissal from service made by Muhammad Riaz formerly Patwari for irregularities allegedly committed by him while he was posted in Halqa Bhindi Beig Mahany. The dismissal order was passed on 20th April, 1980 by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jhang Sub-Division. An appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division was rejected on 22nd February, 1981 while a revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue was not replied to.

2. The charge against the appellant was that he had been found to have changed or erased a number of entries in the revenue record for ulterior motives and trying to cause benefit to persons other than those legally deserving.

3. It was stated for the appellant that he had been punished without due reason. The main charge against him was that he had made inter polation in the revenue record, but it was nowhere stated for what advantage, either to himself or to others, he should have done so. If there was any tempering with the record it was not done by him, and in any case neither he nor anyone else was the beneficiary of such tampering. No blame about illegal gratification had fallen on him, and no party had been given any benefit because of the alleged act. It was submitted that bad a proper enquiry been held the charge about wrong tenancy shown in the record would have been proved false because the owners of the land in ques tion would themselves have stated who were the real tenants. Just because the learned Assistant Commissioner found the entries of 1975-76 (made by the appellant) to be dubious he presumed that the entries of 1973-74 were correct and the appellant was punished on the strength of that presumption. Similarly in respect of the charges relating to allotment of land, the appellant had only made proposals in Form L. R. 3 and L. R. 5 which were duly scrutinised by the Kanungo and by the Naib-Tehsildar in Ijlas-i-aam and later verified by the Tehsildar. The appellant averred that if there had been any interpolation it must have been done by his successor.

4. On behalf of the respondents, the learned District Attorney stated that proposals under L. R. 3 and L. R. 5 are made according to entries in the Kasra Girdawari and since the very entries were interpolated the proposals would also naturally be based on them. Noone else could have made the charges in the revenue record and the appellant had been rightly penalised for this offence.

5. I have carefully heard the parties and have also looked into the re cord of the case and the related documents. Whatever the appearance, it has not been shown to my satisfaction that the alleged interpolations in the revenue record were made by the appellant and by noone else. Circum stances may apparently present the appellant in a guilty light but we cannot go by circumstances alone in matters of revenue record as something more tangible is required to prove a person guilty of misdemeanour involving tempering with facts and figures.

6. In view of the fact that the charges cannot be said to have been proved. I accept this appeal and order the reinstatement of the appellant ~g to service with all back benefits.

A. E. Appeal accepted.