Find a Lawyer

Case No. 17 of 1985, decided on 26th June, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r.6 (3)‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Food grain Supervisor charged for shortage in stock‑‑Explanation to show‑cause notice supported by documents indicating that stock involved despatched to other P.R. Centre‑‑No proper enquiry held to sift truth‑‑Penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of alleged loss, in circumstances, held, result of misapplication of mind, by‑passing established facts on record and ignoring prescribed procedure of despatch of stock hence set aside by Service Tribunal.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Mazhar Hussain Shah, ex‑Foodgrain Supervisor, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and the Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that appeal be accepted and order of respondent No. 1 dated 23‑8‑1984 be set aside and appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:‑

That while the appellant was posted at P.R. Centre Sanawan District Muzaffargarh during the year 1982‑83, was served with a show cause notice by the Assistant Food Controller, Kot Addu, dated 28‑5‑1984, to report to the office of the District Food Controller Muzaffargarh within three days alongwith the record to explain " failing which departmental action would be taken against him. The appellant replied the same in which he stated that 440 bags of Wheat had been misappropriated by Javed lqbal Mazari, Foodgrains Inspector, P.R. Centre Chak Bodla. To this reply he also appended two letters dated 3‑11‑1982 and 7‑11‑1982, which he had earlier sent to the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region and District Food Controller, Muzaffargarh, indicating that Javed Iqbal Mazari, had misappropriated the bags. However, reply of the appellant was not considered satisfactory and appellant was summoned by respondent No 1 (authority) vide its letter dated 8‑7‑1984, for personal hearing. fie appeared before the said officer and submitted him a written explanation placed on record as Annexure 'D'. After hearing the appellant, the respondent No. 1 was pleased to refer back the case to the District Food Controller/ Authorised Officer to hold further enquiry. The appellant while appearing before the District Food Controller submitted that Javed Iqbal Mazari, Foodgrain Supervisor of P.R. Centre Chak Bodla, Mohammad Saeed Durrani, Foodgrain Inspector and Karim Bakhsh, Ledger Clerk of D.F.C. Office be summoned in order to give him a chance to prove his contention. The case was fixed on 2‑8‑1984. Javed Iqbal Mazari had appeared before the D.F.C. but he did not bring Gate Pass register of Centre Chak Bodla, which was a most crucial document vis‑a‑vis the claim of the appellant. The reasons for not bringing the Gate Pass Register, given by Javed Iqbal Mazari were that the same had been taken away alongwith other record of the said centre by somebody else. The appellant as a matter of abundant caution requested District Food Controller to obtain Gate Pass Register so that the interpolation might not be made. The case was fixed for 8‑8‑1984 and Javed Iqbal Mazari was directed to produce Gate Pass Register on that date. To this Javed lqbal Mazari made an application to the District Food Controller showing his lack of confidence in him and thus got the inquiry adjourned sine‑die. In this manner the entire second inquiry ended in stale mate. Later on appellant was summoned for personal hearing by respondent No. 1 on 23‑8‑1984, and was dismissed from service with further observation that he would stand debar from further service in Government Department and also imposed upon him recovery of Rs. 76,421.80. The appellant filed appeal before respondent No. 1 and as no decision had been taken on the said appeal, the appellant has filed this appeal after a lapse of 90 days before this Tribunal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset raised two legal points/objections:‑

(1) That show‑cause notice dated 28‑5‑1984, could not be given by Assistant Food Controller, Kot Addu, who had no powers to do so under the Delegation of Powers Rules. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, under Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 it was the Authorised Officer who could issue a show‑cause notice only.

(2) That the show‑cause notice was vague and in contravention of rule 6 (3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules inasmuch as it did not give the ground on which the allegation was based.

6. With regard to the merits of the case it was submitted that the appellant was alleged to have misappropriated 444 bags of Wheat weighing 341.990 Metric Tons Wheat of 1982‑83 Scheme at P.R. Centre Sanawan, involved disputed question of fact, therefore, procedure under rule 6(3) was highly undesirable and unjustified. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this matter deserved a full‑fledged inquiry particularly when the appellant had lot of documents in his custody to show that the person involved would be Javed Iqbal Mazari and not the appellant.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Department. It has been submitted that the District Food Controller/ Authorised Officer served the show‑cause notice on the appellant through the Assistant Food Controller, Kot Addu, therefore, the same was not illegal. It has been further submitted that the charge of misappropriation of 444 bags wheat has been proved against the appellant, therefore, the Authorised Officer could proceed against him under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, therefore, no deviation from Rules and Regulations has been made. As regards merits of the case, learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Deputy Director Food Multan and has submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the record of the case reveals that the appellant had in his charge stock of Wheat weighing 1036.355 tons at P.R. Centre Sanawan. Out of this he despatched 385.409 tons to P.R. Centre Chak Bodla out of which he had brought back 440 bags of wheat weighing 41.821 tons because the said stock was not accepted by Javed Iqbal Mazari, Foodgrain Supervisor, Incharge P.R. Centre Chak Bodla, on the ground that it was of poor quality. In this manner according to the record of this case Javed lqbal Mazari entered 451.250 tons of Wheat in the Stock Register G.P.VII. I have also checked the procedure regarding despatch of wheat from one centre to another and find that according to the procedure laid down by the Department the bags of Wheat are loaded in the Trucks and entries are made in G.P. 13, giving the number of truck, number of bags carried with their weight and signatures of Truck Drivers concerned are obtained thereon. The examination of record reveals as under:‑

(1) Truck No. MND‑5495 was despatched to P.R. Centre Chak Bodla on 29‑6‑1982,. carrying 110 bags as per entries in G.P. 13, which was signed by Truck Driver Ghulam Shabbir in token of receipt of the said Bags. The same entries were made at serial No. 51 of Gate Register Nikas, appended on record as Annexure 'J', which was also signed by Ghulam Shabbir in token of receipt of the aforesaid wheat.

(2) Truck No. DN‑2047 was despatched carrying 100 Bags of Wheat on 1‑8‑1982, which was duly entered in G.P. 13 placed on record as Annexure 'K', which was signed by Truck Driver Niaz Ahmad in token of its receipt and necessary entries were made in the Gate Pass Register at serial Nos. 69, which was duly signed by Niaz Ahmad in token of having received the Wheat. The receipt of 100 bags of wheat has been acknowledged by receipt, dated 1‑8‑1982 signed by Zafar Iqbal brother of Javed Iqbal Mazari who was working as Chaukidar at P.R. Centre Chak Bodla at the relevant time.

(3) Trucks No. MN‑2047 and DN‑1357 each carrying 100 bags were despatched on 2‑8‑1982 which were duly entered in G.P. 13 and signed by Niaz Ahmad and Ejaz Hussain Drivers. Similarly entries were made at serial No. 74 and 75 of Gate Pass Register which were signed by Niaz Ahmad and Ejaz Hussain Drivers respectively. There is also an acknowledgment of the receipt of Truck No. DN‑2047 carrying 100 bags of wheat by Javed Iqbal Mazari but no entries were made in the register by him.

(4) Truck No. DN‑1357 carrying 100 bags was despatched on 31‑12‑1982, which was signed by Adnan Khan, driver in token of its receipt and necessary entries were made at serial No. 70 of Gate Pass Register which was signed by Adnan Khan driver in token of its receipt. In this case Zafar Iqbal Chowkidar, who was brother of Mazari, had issued receipt of the same, which is Annexure 'M'. The appellant had produced all these receipts in original at the time of hearing.

9. In the light of above it is crystal clear that four trucks carrying 410 bags of wheat weighing 41.990 tons were despatched through trucks of Transport Contractor to P.R. Centre of Chak Bodla. In this manner once the stock of wheat had left the premises under the control of the appellant, he stood fully absolved of the responsibilities. According to clause 7 of the agreement with the Transport Contractor the said Contractor would be responsible for any shortage of stock in transit due to theft, damages and pilferage etc. This clause fully supports the contention of the appellant that once the wheat had left the Transport Contractor shall be responsible to make good the loss so occurred either by theft or misappropriation. It appears from the record of this case that this important aspect of this case has been lost sight of by the Enquiry Officer, Authorised Officer/ Authority and they have held the appellant responsible on the ground that he should have accompanied the stock to the next Centre and should have seen that the stock is duly delivered at the said place, a presumption which is neither warranted by any procedure nor it is justified and logical. If at all the authority had any apprehension that the appellant had failed to do what was expected from him and was making lame excuses to save his skin, it was incumbent upon him to call the Truck Drivers so mentioned in the earlier part of my judgment, who had signed in token of receipt of wheat, in order to clarify the matter as to whether the Wheat had gone.

10. It is also on record that when the case was remanded for further inquiry ' by the Authorised Officer, after the appellant had submitted his explanation, the appellant did make written request to the officer concerned that Javed Iqbal Mazari be summoned. It is also on record that Javed Iqbal Mazari had admitted that neither Gate Pass Register and nor record was available with him and some unauthorised person had taken away without permission from him. With this position which is fully established by written documents, it was the duty of the said officer to sift the truth and compelled Javed Iqbal Mazari to clarify his position, but what happened was that he by only submitting an application E for lack of confidence in the said officer, got the inquiry adjourned sine die and thus left the appellant in lurch with sifting the truth on the strength of documentary evidence. In the light of above, I am of the considered opinion that by misapplication of mind, bypassing the established facts on record and ignoring the procedure so laid down, with regard to the despatch of wheat from one centre to another, the Authority has given a decision which is neither justified nor legal.

11. The result is I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be re‑instated in service forthwith. However, the period of absence from duty to the date of re‑instatement C will be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs.

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.