ABDUR REHMAN BABAR vs N.W.F.P. through the Chief Secretary, Government
The petitioner, a former Tehsildar, challenged his compulsory retirement from service following departmental proceedings. He was accused of attesting land mutations in violation of revenue laws, specifically regarding land already subject to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner argued before the Service Tribunal that he acted in routine without knowledge of the prior acquisition award, a defense rejected by the Tribunal on the basis of his official position as the Revenue Officer of the circle. Upon seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate, particularly noting that other individuals involved in similar defaults received only minor penalties. The Supreme Court observed that the Service Tribunal failed to adequately consider the issue of proportionality in sentencing. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the punishment imposed was excessive and discriminatory compared to the treatment of others similarly situated, thereby requiring further judicial review of the administrative action.
- Does the imposition of a severe penalty like compulsory retirement for misconduct require consideration of proportionality when others involved in similar defaults received minor penalties?
- Is a Revenue Officer presumed to have knowledge of land acquisition awards within their circle of jurisdiction?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on the failure of a Service Tribunal to consider the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty?
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act 1894
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The charge against the petitioner was that "while serving as Tehsildar, Abbottabad, during 1979 (he) attested Mutation Nos. 9415, 9416 and 9417 is respect of the land situated in village Sheikh-ul-Bandi, about which Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was already issued and announcement of final award made on 14-12-1978 i.e, in clear violation of revenue laws".
2. ' After departmental proceedings the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. His appeal to the Service Tribunal having failed he has moved this Court seeking leave to appeal.
3. ' The plea of the petitioner before the Service Tribunal mainly was that he being newly posted in the locality was not, in fact, aware of the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector and that he had attested the mutations in routine. This plea, however, did not find favour with the Service Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner being the incharge of the Tehsil Office was supposed to know the acquisition of the area under reference and more particularly so when he was the Revenue Officer of the Circle in question.
4. However, no attention was given by the Service Tribunal to the circumstance that several other persons who were guilty of similar defaults were imposed minor penalties and that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was out of all proportion with the misconduct committed, if any.
5. ' This aspect of the case requires further consideration. Leave granted.
6. ' The appeal shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing at a very early date.
Cited by 2 cases
- SHAKEEL AKHTAR Versus M.S. MENTAL HOSPITAL , M. Sharif Butt 2000 SCMR 71
- SHAKEEL AKHTAR Versus M.S., MENTAL HOSPITAL , M. Sharif Butt 2000 PLC(CS) 342