RASOOL BAKHSH Versus COLLECTOR, RAHIMYAR KHAN

ORDER

1. The appellant was a Patwari in Tehsil Liaquatpur of Rahimyar Khan District. He was served with a charge‑sheet dated 7‑9‑1972 alleging that (i) In the year 1967 he was summoned 22 times through the Assistant Commissioner and Tehsildar, Liaquatpur for completion of his service book in the Collector's office but he failed to make an, appearance. (ii) Tehsildar, Liaquatpur served a notice on him to this effect on 25‑7‑1970 but in spite of that he did not comply. (iii) Another notice was issued which was served on him on 14‑9‑1970 but he again failed to comply.

2. The Patwari was placed under suspension by an order dated the 15th September 1970 and a regular inquiry was held into the charges.

3. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty for non‑compliance of the notice served on him on 25‑7‑1970 and 14‑9‑1970 but recommended his reinstate ment. The required completion of the service book was effected in the meantime by the complainant on 9‑10 1970. The Collector, District Rahim Yar Khan, however, by his order dated 2‑3‑1970 removed the Patwari from service. The Patwari went in appeal to the Commissioner Bahawalpur Division who in his appellate order of 30‑6‑1970 modified the Collector's order and converted the punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement.

4. The appeal was admitted by us for regular hearing with the observation that prima facie the penalty imposed upon the appellant appeared to be harsh.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution could establish service of notice to him only on two occasions i e. on 25‑7‑1970 and 14‑9‑1970, for which satisfactory explanations had been tendered. On one occasion he was restrained by the Tehsildar from attending the once of the Collector as he was busy in important official work of preparing Jamabandi. He also pleaded that he had fallen ill on account of overwork and his memory was impaired on account of such illness so that he forgot about the service of the notice on him. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that other notices said to have been sent to him, were not addressed direct to him but were admittedly sent through the Assistant Commissioner or Tehsildar, Liaquatpur and no service of such notice upon the appellant has been established by the respondents.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments of both sides. The respondents have not been able to show us if service of any of the notices said to have been sent through Assistant Com missioner or Tehsildar Liaquatpur was effected on the appellant except on two occasions i e. on 28‑7‑1970 and 14‑9‑1970. Even if some of these notices were indeed served on the Patwari we still consider the punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the Patwari to be incommensurate with his guilt. The default of the Patwari neither related to a matter affecting the revenues of the Government nor amounted to public misconduct. The default related to a simple matter of completion of a few entries in the Service Book. It appears that since the matter in issue was the completion of the appellant's own service book he tended to treat the matter lightly and did not quite realise that his conduct amounted to disobedience of orders. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division dated 30‑6‑1971. The Patwari should be reinstated in service, restored to his original position of seniority but he shall not claim any arrears for the period falling between his removal and, his resuming duty. No order as to costs.