Find a Lawyer

Case No. 416/366 of 1983, decided on 3rd March, 1984.

‑‑ S. 4‑-- Disciplinary action‑ Charge established in enquiry‑ Impugned order of penalty found well‑considered, correct and lawful‑Appeal against such order, in circumstances, dismissed.

Sheikh Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents,

Sh. Mahmood Ahsan, Senior Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnager has filed this appeal, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 8th November, 1982, passed by the respondent No. 1, and the order dated 4th May, 1983, passed by the respondent No. 2, being illegal, against the facts and bad in law, be set aside and the appellant be honour ably acquitted of the charges against him.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as a District Nazir in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar in the year 1976. In those days a consignment of 21 metric tons of dried skimmed milk and 2188 tins of edible oil was received under the World Food Programme in the District for free rationing to the flood‑affected persons in the District. These commodities were stored in the office and remained under the custody of the appellant and Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Store Keeper. After some time it came to the notice of the higher authorities that almost half of these commodities had been misappropriated by the above officials and a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the Deputy Com missioner, Babawalnagar to be conducted by Sh. Zameer Ali, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Bahawalpur. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) in the presence of Muhammad Yar Khokhar, Magistrate held the enquiry against the appellant and Riaz Ahmad, Store Keeper. The appellant admitted before the Enquiry Officer that the commodities were misappropriated and sold in the markets at Multan and Burewala. He was paid Rs. 7,000 by the Store Keeper as his share on selling of these commodities and he was prepared to deposit Rs. 7,000 in the Government treasury, consequently Rs. 7,000 were deposited by the appellant. The appellant in accompany of Mr. Muhammad Yar Khokhar, Magistrate, went to Multan and Burewala for the recovery of the alleged commodities which could not be recovered, however, the person namely, Mr. Mahmood Hussain, admitted in the presence of the Magistrate that he had bought some of the commodities and had paid the cost to the appellant and the Storekeeper. After enquiry the services of the appellant were terminated by the Deputy Commissioner, Babawalnagar. His appeal was also rejected the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. After this, the appellant made an appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal which was accepted on a technical ground that no show‑cause notice was given to the appellant and he was not provided with the copy of the enquiry report vide order, dated 12th September, 1979, in Appeal No. 46/167 of 1978 of the appellant. On this the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar again ordered another enquiry in the matter. This enquiry was conducted by Syed Faqir Anwar‑ud‑Din. On the basis of this enquiry a show‑cause notice was served upon the appellant. A reply was submitted by the appellant. After considering the pros and cons of the case of the appel lant, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar vide his order, dated 8th November, 1982, imposed the penalty on the appellant, in reducing his pay four stages down. The period of his suspension was also allowed on duty. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur against this order which was rejected vide his order dated 4th May, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was District Nazar and was not all responsible for looking after and the custody of the alleged commodities for which he bad been held responsible for misappropriation of the same. The said commodities were in the custody of Riaz Ahmad, Store Keeper who was wholly and solely responsible for the receipt and disposal of these. The appellant who was a District Nazar, had no concern with these commodities, has been made a scapegoat in this case and has been punished arbitrarily, without his fault. The appellant's counsel has submitted that such a reference is made to enquiry report, the prosecution witnesses have nowhere implicated the appellant in this affair. Even Rs. 7,000 said to have been recovered from the appellant, were recovered from his brother; that too under duress. The appellant's counsel has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside, being against the facts of the case and being unlawful.

5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents, has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also the facts and details given in the impugned orders. It has been submitted by him that it is wrong on the part of the appellant/appellant's counsel to say that he was not responsible for the misappropriation of the commodities. The reports of the Enquiry Qfficers clearly prove that the appellant was a party in this case and was equally responsible for the supervision, receipt, issue and misappropriation of these commodities alongwith Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Storekeeper. Thus, the impugned orders passed against the appellant are correct, lawful orders and are justified.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also carefully perused the record of this case. It is clear from the impugned order, dated 4th May, 1983 of the Commissioner, Babawalpur Division, Bahawalpur that the Enquiry Officers had proved that the appellant alongwitb Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Store‑keeper were responsible for the safe custody of the commodities. He did not inform his superiors about the misappropriation of these commodities, hence be was a shareholder in misappropriation of the commodities. The appellant had also admitted before the Enquiry Officers that the commodities were sold at Multan and Burewala and he was prepared to pay back Rs. 7,000 as his share of the misappropriation. It is also a fact that Rs. 7,000 were paid by him. From the above facts of the case, the charge of misappropriation against the appellant stood proved without any doubts. Thus I consider that the impugned orders passed against the appellant are well‑considered, correct and lawful orders.

7. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to 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.