Find a Lawyer

Case No. 124/1591 of 1982, decided on 12th December, 1983.

‑‑‑R. 2‑‑Misconduct‑‑Low‑paid official charged with negligence or ulterior motive resulting in colossal loss to Government‑‑Explanation claiming innocence and indicating extent of responsibility rejected without cogent reasons‑‑Recovery of loss ordered‑‑Decision challenged before Tribunal‑‑Case remanded with directions to give reasons against appellant's contentions and for his conclusion.

Syed Iqbal Haider Zaidi for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑S. Munawar Hussain Shah, Food Grains Supervisor, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 17‑10‑1981 for the recovery of Rs. 74,605.18 be set aside as the same was unjustified.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Foodgrains Supervisor at Khangah Dogran, Provincial Reserve Centre, District Sheikhupura in the year 1976‑77, where it was found that a shortage of 244.517.260 Kgs has occurred from the wheat stock so stored in 54 Private Godowns at that Centre. A probe was conducted into the affairs, the appellant was charge‑sheeted to which he submitted his explanation and ultimately it was found unsatisfactory by the Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore who decided that he was responsible for this loss to tune of Rs. 3,03,201.43 alongwith Mr. Muhammad Zakaria, Foodgrains Inspector. The appellant was aggrieved against this assessment of this loss as well as .the recovery so made against him. The appellant filed an appeal before the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore who vide his order, dated 17‑10‑1981, reduced the same and held the appellant responsible to the tune of Rs. 74,605.18 and also held Mr. Muhammad Zakaria responsible for the loss of Rs. 1,49,390.30. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of the case very carefully.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us and has submitted that in fact the appellant was Just a record of the case keeper but had nothing to do with the sending out the wheat from the Centre or its Storage etc., and thus he could not be held responsible for any loss which was found ultimately by the Department at the said Centre. For this reason he has produced before us a Booklet that the duties of a Foodgrains Supervisors were only to keep the account and prepare the record and nothing further. Inter alia he has also argued that the loss in fact had occurred due to heavy rains and other calamities which were beyond the control of the appellant and thus even such recovery is unjustified. He has further urged that both the impugned orders are not well‑considered orders, wherein the Departmental Authorities have not rebutted the claims of the appellant claiming innocence, therefore, the same may be struck out on this score alone.

6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has stoutly resisted the claim of the appellant and has submitted that the Foodgrains Supervisor was positively required to handle the flow of outgoing wheat as well as to keep the said wheat under proper storage, therefore, he cannot be absolved of this responsibility which was the part and parcel of his duties. It has further been urged that the appellant has been handling, despatching the wheat as stated by his co‑accused in his explanation filed by him before the Departmental Authorities during his supervision period, thus the stand taken by the appellant is without any foundation. He has also relied on column No. 6 which was given in, the Book No. 398 on Province Reserve.

7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and it is clear from the record of this case that the appellant did take a stand before the Deputy Director, Food that he was just a clerk, was only concerned for keeping of the record and thus, he has nothing to do with the storage of wheat or its disposal. While, going through the impugned order, dated 31‑5‑1980 of respondent No. 2, we do not find that this stand was rebutted in any manner whatsoever on cogent reasons. It has been merely stated that the explanation of the appellant has been considered and found unsatisfactory. It cannot be denied even by the respondents that the appellant is a low paid official who was getting a sum of Rs.500 p.m. at the time when he was so working at the said Centre. He is still in service and 1/3rd of his pay in the monthly instalments, is being deducted from his pay which according to the Departmental Authorities has occurred due to his negligence or ulterior motive. In this manner, the loss will be recovered after a period 40 years if this would be a method of recovery as settled by the Department. Keeping these circumstances in view we remand the case to the Deputy Director, Food who passed the original order against the appellant with the direction that he should give reasons against the stand so taken by the appellant viz‑a‑viz his duties and the reliance so placed by the appellant on the Booklet giving the details of such duties. We will also like to know if the appellant was rally a full participant in the matters for the disposal of wheat, storage etc. , and how the Deputy Director has come to a conclusion that colossal loss has been occurred due to his negligence. Mere saying that he was not satisfied in a manner, is not a speaking order.

9. Result is we accept the appeal and set aside the both impugned orders and remand the case with the directions so given in our detailed judgment. There will be no order as to costs.

M.I.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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