Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 118 of 1974, decided on 29th May, 1975.

Rr. 4(1) 1(c) & 6-A-Recovery from pay of pecuniary loss to Government - Responsibility to be fixed through proper inquiry Charge-sheet served, charge denied but no show-cause notice served and no enquiry in presence of accused held-Imposition of penalty and recoveries from official's pay in circumstances, held, not only illegal but also violative of principles of natural justice.

The

appellant at present is working as Agricultural Assistant at Larkana. In the year 1961-62 he was working as Agriculture Assistant, Shahdadkot and was incharge of the godown in which 4121.29 maunds of paddy and 1000 maunds of wheat of one variety and 3972.35 maunds of wheat of another variety were stored for seed purposes. One Mr. C. T. Bhatia was the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture (E. A D. A.) Larkana under whom the appellant was working at that time. Tile stock was disposed off by Mr. Bhatia after 16 months and there was shortage of 477,28 maunds of paddy and 212.13 maunds of wheat of one variety and 110.30 maunds of wheat of another variety. Mr. Bhatia absconded to India and the appellant reported the shortage to the higher authorities vide his two letters written in 1961 and 1962. After inquiry the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Khairpur and the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Khairpur recommended that the shortage of seed was caused due to seapage, driage and re-weighing after a long time and also due to the bad condition of storing in a Katcha godown. They recommended to the Director of Agriculture that the loss should be written off as it was not due to the negligence of any subordinate official. No action was taken by the Director of Agriculture on these recommenda tions. However, this undecided shortage was pointed out to the Director of Agriculture in 1969 by the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture (respon dent No. 3) again recommending that the shortage was not due to the negligence of anybody and it should be written off. The Director did not however agree to his recommendation. On 13-5-1970 the appellant was charge-sheeted by three separate charge-sheets by the Deputy Director of Agriculture Khairpur (respondent No. 2) for loss of the above-said paddy and wheat seed. The appellant submitted his three separate explanations point ing out that the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture as well as Deputy Director of Agriculture, Khairpur had already recommended that the loss due to shortage was normal and it should be written off. The Director of Agriculture (respondent No 1) allowed permissible shortage of 173 maunds of paddy and 159-35 maunds of wheat by his order dated 22-6-1970 but in the same order directed that Rs. 3401; being the price of 304.14 maunds of paddy, and Rs. 2733 being the price of 163.13 maunds of wheat, total amount Rs. 6134 be recovered from the appellant by deducting 1 /3rd of his pay each month. The appellant preferred appeal to the Government but no order was communicated to him. The appellant therefore, filed the Civil Suit in the District Court Larkana which abated on 22-6-74 on account of the extension of Article 212 (21 of the Permanent Constitution to this Tribunal.

The appellant contends that the order of respondent No. 1 ordering recovery of Rs. 6134.75 from him was illegal, void and inoperative because no inquiry was held against him nor was he given an opportunity to defend himself in person and also because no final show-cause notice was given to him before imposing the major penatly of above-said heavy amount on him. It is an admitted position that the charge-sheets were given to the appellant under the West Pakistan Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1960. It was there fore necessary that the procedure for inquiry set down by those rules should have been adopted. Admittedly neither the statement of allegations was sent to the appellant nor was any inquiry held against him to fix the respon sibility on him.

The respondents have contested the appeal. They admit that Mr. Bhatia the then Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture had purchased the above-said quantity of paddy and wheat seed in 1961-62 and stored it in the godown at Shahdadkot. Their case is that the appellant was responsible for the shortage because the godown was under his sole control. They allege to be appellant did not inform his higher authorities about the shortage at any time. They also deny that the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Khairpur had recommended that the loss or shortage be written off because the appellant was not responsible for it. They however, stand contradicted by their own documents produced on record. It is clear from these documents that the appellant had reported about the shortage in 1961 and 1962 but, no action was taken till 1969. The respondents also deny that the damage or shortage was due to the bad condition of godown or due to seapage and other natural factors. This is also contradicted by the alcove-said docu ments written by respondents 2 and 3 in February 1969. They further state that the appellant was properly charge-sheeted and was found responsible for the shortage and that no inquiry was necessary. It is obvious that they fixed the responsibility of shortage on the appellant without holding any inquiry against him. It is also obvious that respondent No. 1 did not consider the recommendation of respondents 2 and 3 that no one was respondent for the shortage as it was due to natural causes. He only allowed the permissible shortage and made the appellant liable for the rest without holding inquiry. This is against lacy and principles of natural justice. The respondents further assert that the appellant was given every opportunity to defend himself. They do not however specifically state that the statement of allegations was served on appellant alongwith the charge-sheet or that any inquiry was held against him through any Inquiry Officer. They also do not say that the final show-cause notice was served on the appellant before imposing the penalty on him.

The important point in the case is whether the responsibility of the shortage of paddy and wheat seed wag at all fixed on the appellant before imposing the penalty on him.

There is no dispute regarding the quantum of shortage of seed. It admittedly occurred in 1910-61 and 1961-52. It is not denied chat the seed was purchased and stored in the godown by Mr. Bhatia who was the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Larkana at that time and was sold by him after 15 or 16 months. The shortage was detected and Mr. Bhatia absconded to India. The appellant's case is that he reported the shortage to his authorities viz Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Khairpur and Deputy Director of Agriculture, Khairpur, by his two letters dated 21-6-62 and 3-4-61. He says it was recommended by the then Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Khairpur to the Director of Agriculture that the damage was due to seapage, shrinkage and other natural factors hence the loss should be written off. He has produced there documents (Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3) in support of his contention. These letters clearly disclose that "the shortage of paddy and wheat seed bad occurred due to driage, shrinkage, re-weightment and seapage attack to the bottom of the bags because the paddy was stored in Katcha store. Period of shortage was 7 months. The Agriculture Assistant Shahdakot (appellant) had applied for sanction under his No. 116 dated 3-4-61 (copy enclosed) which was forward by the then Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Larkana (Mr. C. T, Bhatia) under his No. 9.12 dated 20-4-61 (original statement is lying with Deputy Director of Agriculture, Khairpur). It is also certified that the loss shown in the statement was normal and not due to the negligence of any subordinate official hence case is recommended for write off." All the three annexures are regarding the same shortage for which the appellant is penalized. The documents support the version of the appellant that he was not respondent for the alleged shortage. He has emphatically denied his responsibility for the shortage in his replies to the 3 charge-sheets. These documents also indicate that the appellant had reported the matter to the authorities concerned as long back as 1961 and 1962 but no action was taken by anybody till 1970. These documents further indicate that even in 1969 the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture again recommended that "the loss shown in the statement was normal and not due to the negligence, wilful or otherwise, of any official hence it should be written off." The Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture in 1969 could not be Mr. Bhatia because he absconded to India in 1962 but he must be some one else who too exonerated the appellant and recommended his case to the Director. He also pointed out in those letters that the appel lant had reported the shortage in 1961 arid 1962. Therefore the contention of the respondents that the shortage was not reported by the appellant is incorrect. Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 are the original official documents produced by the appellant and are not disputed by the respondents. They are contrary to the stand taken by the respondents. The perusal of these documents clearly indicates that the appellant was not responsible for the alleged shortage hence he could not be penalized for the same. No responsibility was fixed on him by the respondents before passing an order that he should make good the loss. 1t is an ex parte and arbitrary order and cannot' be maintained.

The respondents allege that the appellant had admitted the shortage of seed hence there was no need for inquiry or for examination of any witness or record in his presence. No doubt the appellant had admitted the shortage of seed but he bad positively denied the responsibility for it. In order to fix the responsibility on the appellant, it was essential that the regular inquiry was held against him in his presence. This was admittedly not done by the respondents. No inquiry officer was even appointed by them. It is also a fact that the charge-sheets issued to the appellant were not accompanied by any statement of allegations which was a legal binding according to the West Pakistan Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1960. Sine the appellant, had denied his responsibility in his reply to the charge-sheet it was incumbent on the respondents to hold inquiry against him and fix the responsibility of shortage on him. This was not done and the appellant could not be con demned unheard. The penalty imposed on the appellant was against the existing rules and principles of natural justice.

We therefore, come to the conclusion that the order of respondent No. 1 ordering recovery of Rs. 6134.75 from the pay of the appellant was illegal and inoperative and it must therefore be set aside. We accordingly allow the appeal and leave each party to bear his own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.