Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 70 of 1984, decided on 17th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15‑12‑1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No. 112/77 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Acquiescence of petitioner‑ Petitioner charged with negligence/embezzlement‑‑Recovery of loss ordered by competent authority‑‑Order impugned before Service Tribunal‑‑Petitioner agreeing to re‑checking of stock/accounts allowed by Tribunal‑‑Extent of loss substantially reduced‑‑Petitioner, held, liable to pay reduced amount‑‑Order challenged‑‑Plea that Service Tribunal could not base its judgment on basis of scrutiny made during pendency of appeal in which accused was not associated, repelled‑‑Petitioner having agreed to/welcomed proposal, raising no objection nor claiming facility of being associated with scrutiny when it was being done, and after deriving benefit of its finding, wished to take further benefit of having whole order set aside on account of course adopted by Tribunal without realising that if his plea was accepted, he would be liable to pay full amount‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1985.
This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 15‑12‑1983 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. The petitioner, while working as Sub‑Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department, was transferred in the year 1967 to work as Sub‑Engineer (Mechanical) at Headworks Sulemanki.
3. He was charge‑sheeted by the Superintending Engineer Head quarters Irrigation on 8‑2‑1974 on the charges that he was responsible for some shortage of materials, namely shortage of stock and T. P. articles amounting to Rs.1,15,209.90. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges against him stood established. A show‑cause notice was, therefore, issued to him and ultimately, vide order, dated 14‑9‑1981, the Superintending Engineer held him as well as one Sarwar Javid, Sub‑Engineer (who was one of his predecessors in office) jointly responsible for the shortage of stock and T.P. articles worth Rs.1,15,209.90. Consequently, recovery proceedings for half of the said amount, namely, Rs.57,604.95 were initiated against him.
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Superintending Engineer, Headquarters Irrigation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal alleging that he was not responsible for the shortage at all. Before the Tribunal, it was also argued that the shortage in the stock articles for which the petitioner was being held responsible included some items which had outlived their utility or had already been consumed and did not exist in stock when the petitioner was posted as Sub‑Engineer at Headworks Sulemanki. It appears that the Tribunal, in order to determine the correctness of this allegation, allowed Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar, Executive Engineer to re‑check the stock and the latter, after scrutiny, found that out of the shortage of stock and T.P. articles shown short against the petitioner's stores worth Rs.29,100 could not be attributed to him and was remissable while the petitioner was responsible for the loss amounting to Rs.28,504.95 only, which had occured due to his negligence/ embezzlement.
5. The learned Tribunal found that the account presented after scrutiny and re‑checking by Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar portrayed the correct position and, accordingly accepted the appeal partially and modified the impugned orders to the extent that recovery of Rs.28,504.95 be made from him instead of fis.57,604.95 as directed in the impugned order. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the afore mentioned order passed by the Tribunal.
6. The only contention raised before us by Ch. Mushtaq Masood, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the Tribunal could not base its judgment on the basis of the scrutiny and re‑checking carried out during the pendency of the appeal by Mr. Muhammad Saved Khokhar, Executive Engineer, especially as the petitioner was not associated with the said inquiry carried out by the Executive Engineer aforesaid.
7. We find no force in this plea. It is quite evident that not only was the petitioner agreeable to the course adopted by the Tribunal of having the stores etc. re‑checked by Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar he welcomed it. He raised no objection to the inquiry while it was being done nor claimed the facility of being associated with the scrutiny carried out by him. After deriving the benefit of his finding that he was liable for only less than the half of the amount earlier found against him he now wishes to take a further benefit of having the whole order set aside on account of the course adopted by the Tribunal, without reallsing that if his plea is accepted he would be liable to pays Rs. 57, 604.95 and not merely Rs.28, 504.95.
8. This petition is misconceived and without merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer