Syed SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
The petitioner, a Patwari, was discharged from service for gross misconduct after being accused of supplying inconsistent copies of a jamabandi to different parties, which facilitated a land sale contravening Martial Law Regulation No. 62. His departmental appeal and revision were dismissed, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed his writ petition in limine. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of defense, that extraneous material was considered against him without notice, that the charges did not constitute misconduct, and that the inquiry was tainted by bias. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity, that findings of fact by the inquiring authorities regarding his status and record were unassailable in these proceedings, and that mere disagreement with factual findings does not amount to legal bias. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the disciplinary action and the High Court's order.
- Whether a finding of fact regarding departmental misconduct reached by an inquiry officer can be re-agitated in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Does the consideration of a confidential report by an inquiring authority to determine an appropriate penalty vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Can mere disagreement with factual findings or an adverse conclusion by an inquiry officer be equated with legal bias affecting quasi-judicial proceedings?
- Paragraph 25, Martial Law Regulation No. 62
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner, in 1968-69, was holding the charge of Patwar Circle No. 112-NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha. In January 1969, one Sultan Ali of Chak No. 112-NB approached the petitioner for providing him copy of jamabandi of the land held by him and his brothers in Khata No. 20, Khatauni No. 136 jointly with Abdul Ghafoor and others. The petitioner supplied him a copy which showed that the entire holding was 73 kanals and 7 marlas. It is alleged against the petitioner that subsequently Baqa Muhammad obtained copy of the same land. The petitioner supplied him the copy of jamabandi and showed 72 kanals of land as the holding of Sultan Ali and his brothers. "Sultan Ali sold the property to Baqa Muhammad to the extent of 72 kanals of land but as this sale contravened the Martial Law Regulation No. 62, para. 25, sub-clause (iv), the mutation was rejected by the Naib Tehsildar on the 30th May 1969. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for supplying of an untrue copy to Baqa Muhammad and for causing loss to him. He was served with a show-cause notice on the 16th August 1969, by respondent No. 3. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct, and sent his report to the Collector.
2. The Collector, by order dated the 18th September 1969, accepted the inquiry report and passed an order that the petitioner be discharged from service. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commis--sioner, Sargodha, which was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision before respondent No. 1, which was dismissed on the 26th January 1970, as being incompetent. The matter was then taken in Writ Petition No. 1443-S/1970, which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on the 22nd December 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. In support of the petition Malik Saeed Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged four points-
(i) that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action taken against him,
(ii) that certain material was considered against the petitioner without notice to him,
(iii) that the charge made against the petitioner does not disclose that he had committed misconduct, and
(iv) that the order of the Inquiry Officer is based on bias.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel has not impressed us. The first contention that the petitioner was not given reason--able opportunity is based on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce Sultan Ali as defence witness on his behalf. The judgment of the High Court shows that the counsel for the petitioner conceded before them that the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce the said witness. This point was also not pressed before the learned Commissioner in revision. The order of the learned Commissioner in this respect is silent. In these circumstances the High Court was perfectly justified in observing that this point cannot be reagitated in the writ jurisdiction.
5. In connection of the second point the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector has wrongly stated that the petitioner was a candidate patwari and has wrongly relied on his confidential report. It is contended that this has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. In our opinion, this contention has no force. The question whether the petitioner was a candidate patwari or a full-fledged patwari is a question of fact and could only be determined by the Inquiring Authority. We are satisfied that the Inquiring Authority was quite competent to consider the confidential report of the petitioner in coming to the conclusion as to what penalty should be imposed on him.
6. Malik Saeed Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charge made against the petitioner does not disclose misconduct. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has given certified copy of the jamabandi relating to 72 kanals of land at the request of Sultan Ali and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has supplied a wrong copy. This is a question of fact. The Inquiry Officer has come to an adverse conclusion and we are not inclined to interfere with this finding in these proceedings before us.
7. The question of bias has also been considered by us. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer are based on no evidence, there--fore, they are based on bias. In our opinion, this cannot be considered as a bias. The bias which affects the quasi-judicial proceedings is of a different nature altogether. It must offend the principles of natural justice. No such foundation has been laid .4 down in this case. This contention is also repelled.
8. After going through the record, we are satisfied that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the Inquiring Authorities to meet the charge levelled against him. The High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in not interfering with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MESSRS TANWEER TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SANGHAR vs GHULAM SARWAR AND 2 1978 PLD Karachi 842