Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 148/1775 of 1982, decided on 15th March, 1983.
‑‑ R. 7‑Foodgrain Inspector allegedly responsible for loss of stock‑Recovery of alleged loss ordered‑Fixation of responsibility and extent of loss requiring regular inquiry‑No proceedings initiat ed or processed‑Impugned order of recovery of amount representing alleged loss, in circumstances, held, unjustified hence set aside and case remanded to competent authority for proceeding afresh in accordance with rules‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.
Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
Shahid Rasool, Foodgrain Inspector, Food Department, Punjab, has made this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, as respondent.
2. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 22‑5‑1974 and 8‑3‑1982 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, Mr. Shahid Rasool, the appellant was charged with a liability of a sum of Rs. 96,535.25 by the order of Deputy Director Food dated 22‑5‑1974 wherein it was ordered that 1/3rd pay of the appellant be deducted as instalment towards the payment of this amount. The appellant thus paid a sum of Rs. 9,290 out of his pay as cost of the alleged shortage of the indigenous wheat. That on 8‑3‑1982 the appellant was ordered payment of sum of Rs. 87,245.25, remaining amount, within a period of ten days in lump sum by an order passed by District Food Controller, Sahiwal ; as desired by the Government in the Food Department. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. On the outset, legal objections were raised by the learned District Attorney that as no appeal was made by the appellant against the order of Deputy Director Food, dated 22‑5‑1974, to the appellate authority, hence the appeal is not maintainable as per section 4 (a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Furthermore, the order of recovery was passed in 1974 and the appellant has made this appeal in the year 1982 to the Punjab Service Tribunal. Thus, this appeal is time‑barred for 8 years and is not maintainable. This was rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the final order has been passed by the District Food Controller vide his order dated 7‑3‑1982 where it has been clearly laid down that he was issuing this order on the desire of the Government in the Food Department. This order dated 7‑3‑1982 was passed on the decision of the Government and thus, there was no appellate authority left to make an appeal. Furthermore, the appeal has been filed to the Tribunal on 31‑3‑1982 within one month of issuing of this final order dated 7‑3‑1982. Thus, both objections of the learned District Attorney are not in order and be ignored. On merits the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been punished unnecessarily without having been proved the shortage/loss against the appellant. No regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant to prove this shortage/loss. If an enquiry would have been conducted it would have been proved otherwise that the appellant was not responsible for this loss, under the circumstances and keeping the rules under which the rebate or concessions are allowed for those shortages/losses as per rules or practice in vogue by the Food Department. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent. The impugned orders be set aside as the appellant has been punished unnecessarily without any fault of his.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and also have perused the record of this case. As far as legal objections of the learned District Attorney are concerned, we are in agree ment with the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appel lant that the final order dated 7‑3‑1982 has been passed by District Food Controller on the desire of the Government in the Food Department, wherein the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 87,245.25 in lump sum within ten days. This order has been passed unilaterally and the original order passed during 1974 has been altered altogether wherein the lump sum amount has been ordered to be paid by the appellant. Thus the time limit will run from this final order passed on behest of the Government. As such, the appeal is within time and also the appellant was not required to file any appeal on the orders issued as per decision given by Government. Thus, the legal objections of the learned District Attorney are not in order and are ignored.
6. We have gone carefully through the record so produced by the respondents in this case and we are of the considered opinion that a regular enquiry was must in this case to arrive at a correct conclusion for fixing of shortage/loss in this case. As no regular enquiry was conducted, the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to produce his defence and submit his view‑point. Thus, we consider that the shortage/losses arrived at are one‑sided. Furthermore, the procedure as laid down under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules has not been followed properly. Thus, we are of the opinion that justice has not been done with the appellant.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are sell aside and the case is remanded to the authority to proceed against the appellant afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant be also given an opportunity to defend himself by adopting the procedure of holding a regular enquiry so that no injustice is done with him.
Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer