Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 34 of 1979, decided on 9th December, 1979.

Recovery of alleged loss‑Major penalty‑Amount determined without show‑cause notice‑Order, held, void‑West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, r. 4 (1) (c) and Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 4 (1) (a) (iv).

Date of hearing : 9th December, 1979.

In this case the appellant, a retired Sub‑Engineer, questions the order imposing the recovery of Rs. 65,271.88 from the appellant on account of the alleged shortages. The appellant submitted that since the recovery has been prescribed as a major penalty under rules 4 (1) (c) and 4 (1) (a) (iv) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960 and 1975, respectively therefore, the Department was under obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules before imposing the penalty in question. According to the appellant, in fact, there was no order passed by the department imposing the penalty of Rs. 65,271.88 and the order was only in respect of Rs. 13,773.22. The appellant alleged before us that the department has directed the recovery of the amount in question as arrears of land revenue through the Collector concerned.

2. We have seen the record. The position which emerges froth the record is that one Enquiry was conducted by Mr. Hasan Bahadar who held .the overseer responsible for the following items

Rs.

(a) 182.71

(b) 4,417.67

(c) 14,012.22

Rs. 18,612.60

The amount of Rs. 14,012.22 was reduced to Rs. 13,773.22 finally. The Overseer was also held responsible for the amount for not rendering the account for items worth Rs. 4,328.81. A show‑cause notice was issued to the Overseer by the Superintending Engineer to which he submitted a reply. There is no separate order of the Superintending Engineer in this case except that indicated in the pension order of the appellant. The total liability in this case is Rs. 22,702.41. A second enquiry was held by Mr. Majeed Rehmani and the appellant was held responsible for an amount of Rs. 3,958.29 and Rs. 458.38 making a total of Rs. 4,416.6 7. He was also held responsible for the shortage of T. & P. worth Rs. 27,653.00. So far as the second enquiry is concerned, no show‑cause notice was issued to the Overseer but order of the Superintending Engineer regarding the liability of the appellant was included in the pension order of the appellant issued by the Superintending Engineer. The position is that the appellant is liable only for the amount determined to accordance with the E. & D. Rules. Since no show‑cause notice regarding A the amount determined in the Second Enquiry was issued, therefore, the orders in this regard are void and set aside.

3. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and direct that the Depart ment is not entitled to force the recovery from the appellant beyond the amount of Rs. 22,702.41 which cannot be disputed by the appellant.

4. Consequently, the appeal succeeds to the extent and manner indicated above.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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