Find a Lawyer

Case No. 221/98 of 1985, decided on 22nd August, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 6‑‑Show‑cause notice‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Foodgrain Inspector charged for shortage of stores‑‑Penalty of dismissal and recovery of alleged loss imposed , by adopting show‑cause notice procedure‑ Explanation that shortage was due to insufficient arrangements of proper storage‑‑Competent authority allowing 1% of shortage to‑be written off but no detailed reasons given regarding calculation of shortage at 1%‑Enquiry in circumstances, held, should have been conducted to find out truth‑‑Accused, held, prejudiced in matter of defence by adopting show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Impugned dismissal order set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority for proceeding afresh by holding regular enquiry‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.

Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Muhammad Abbas Anwar, Ex‑Foodgrain Inspector, Bahawalpur has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur and the District Food Controller, Bahawalpur as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 3‑9‑1984 and 14‑2‑1985 passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 1, respectively be set aside. It has also been prayed that he be re‑instated in service, w.e.f. the date he was relieved of his duties as such in consequence of his ,dismissal from service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while "the appellant was posted as Foodgrain Inspector, P.R. Centre, Tailwala, District Bahawalpur during 1981‑82, scheme, he purchased and stored a quantity of 5,434.950 Metric tons of wheat in accordance with the policy of the Government. As there was shortage of proper accommodation to store the wheat, it had to be stored in Stacks/Ganjies. Ultimately, on clearance of this stock, there was a shortage of 582.245 Metric tons of wheat from the stock. The respondent No.3, issued a show‑cause notice to the appellant to explain the reasons which led to shortage of wheat in P.R. Centre Tailwala. The appellant submitted his reply to the respondent Ro.3, the District Food Controller, Bahawalpur which did not satisfy him and he made his recommendations to the respondent No.2 for awarding a major penalty to the appellant. On receiving the recommendations from the respondent No.3 (Authorised Officer) the respondent No.2, directed the appellant to appear before him for personal hearing. The appellant appeared before him on 15‑8‑1984 and explained the reasons responsible for the shortage in stocks of wheat. However, the respondent No.2 allowed 1% shortage to be written off and the remaining shortage amounting to Rs.9,59,374.78 was ordered to be recovered from the appellant. In addition to this punishment he ordered for the dismissal of the appellant from service vide his order, dated 3‑9‑1984. The appellant submitted an appeal to the respondent No.1, which was dismissed by him vide his order, dated 14‑2‑1985, communicated to the appellant by respondent No.2, vide his endorsement, dated 11‑3‑1985. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished arbitrarily without proving his guilt. A quantity of 5,434.950 Metric tons of wheat was purchased and stored in P.R. Centre Tailwala, District Bahawalpur where there was no suitable storage arrangements. The stock was stored in Stacks/Ganjies in the open space. There was also heavy rains during the storage period which effected the stocks. Further loss was caused due to excessive moisture which helped infestation by Susri, Khapra, etc. Despite best attempts, it could not be fully controlled, because the chemical treatment, spray etc., was not possible. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that this fact is proved from the impugned order, dated 3‑9‑1984 of Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur who admitted this shortage and allowed 1% shortage to be written off. This decision was not a judicious decision and was based on his wrong judgment of the case. In this scheme for the year 1981‑82 there was provision for allowing higher shortage which should have been allowed by him in such unavoidable and uncontrollable circumstances but only 1% of the shortage was allowed, by him. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision was also taken by the authority arbitrarily, without enquiry into the matter and without affording opportunities to the appellant to produce the record, his evidence to prove his innocence. Thus, the respondents have punished the appellant, without following the provisions and procedure as laid down as per Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the punishment awarded to the appellant is unlawful and against the facts of the case.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that a show‑cause notice was served upon the appellant and he was given due opportunity to defend himself by submitting his explanation. Also 1% shortage have been allowed to be written off as admissible under the Rules, hence the impugned order of recovery and dismissal of the appellant passed by the authority is a valid and lawful order and no exception can be taken for the same.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case. There is no denying of the fact that a large quantity of wheat i.e., 5,434.950 Metric tons was stored in the P.R. Centre, Tailwala, District Bahawalpur where the appellant was posted. The impugned order, dated 3‑9‑1984 of respondent No.2, makes it clear that the type of storage where the shortage had occurred was, three in Stacks, 23 in Ganjies and two in house type godowns. Thus, the contention of the appellant's counsel is correct that most of the stock was stored in open in Stack/Ganjies from which the shortage had occurred. This impugned order also shows that 1% shortage was allowed to be written off. But no detailed reasons have been given in the impugned order how this shortage was calculated. We are persuaded by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that an enquiry should have been conducted to find out the truth in the matter wherein the appellant should have been allowed to produce the record and evidence to prove his innocence or otherwise and thus the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter.

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appear is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by way of holding an enquiry so that no injustice is done to the appellant and he is afforded due opportunities to defend himself. The appellant is also directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon the status of a civil servant so that the authority can proceed against the appellant. However, the fact of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding against the appellant de novo as directed above.

A. E.

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.