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.
Case No. 66/13 of 1985.
‑‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Food grain Inspector of Food Department‑‑‑ Charged for loss/shortage of wheat stock kept in house t‑Type protected godowns‑‑Accused failing to submit reports regarding condition of stock, deterioration thereof and infestation measures adopted‑‑Authority already allowing more remission than that recommended by Authorised Officer‑‑ Interference, in circumstances, refused by Service Tribunal in penalty of recovery imposed by Authority‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.
Riaz Anwar for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Muhammad Ahmad, Assistant Food Controller, Vehari, 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 Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and order of respondent No. 1, dated 20‑9‑1984, be set aside and recovery of Rs.30,564.60 be waived in his favour.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:‑
That the appellant, A.F.C. and Nasir Ahmad Shah, Foodgrains Inspector were Incharge of Wheat stocks at Abdul Hakim Centre to the extent of 6121.552 M. Tons, relating to the scheme of 1977‑78. This Wheat was stored in 55 Bins, underneath the Bins in two house type godowns and in three units in open. The period of storage ranged between two to ten months and ultimately shortage was declared which worked out to 48.331 M. Tons amounting to 0.79% loss. The appellant was charge‑sheeted to which he submitted his explanation and defended the case of shortage only relating to the Wheat lying in open units. The Authorised Officer (District Food Controller) recommended that loss of 12.938 M. Tons be written off while the Deputy Director Food (Authority) ordered to write off the loss to the tune of 16.886 M. Tons. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that shortage of 0.79 was not abnormal and was likely to occur in such condition of storage. According to the learned counsel for the appellant and staff took all measures to fumigate the stock but it did not prove effective. He has based his argument on the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer, who also held that loss in the open units was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and did recommend certain remissions.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the respondents and submitted that the appellant was only held guilty for shortage occurred in three Bins and house type godowns for which he had no reason to say that shortage had occurred due to the act of nature. While controverting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Authority had acted against the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer/Authorised Officer learned District Attorney has submitted that whereas the Authorised Officer had recommended writing off of loss of 12.938 M. Tons while the Deputy Director Food (Authority) ordered to write off loss to the tune of 16.886 M. Tons, therefore, the Authority had written off more quantity than what it was recommended by the Authorised Officer.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that percentage of loss of Wheat in various units of storage comes to 0.22 to 2.09 to which the appellant did not adduce any reason for occurring shortage in house type godowns, therefore, he was responsible for the entire loss which had occurred id the protected godowns. I have also taken into consideration the argument that the Authority did not give remissions as recommended by the Enquiry Officer/Authorised Officer and find that the Authority had given full weight to the recommendations of the Authorised Officer and allowed remission of the loss of 16.886 M. Tons against 12.938 M. Tons so recommended by the aforesaid officer. It is also on record that the appellant did not submit reports regarding condition of stocks, deterioration thereof and the measures adopted to save them from infestation.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the recovery so imposed upon the appellant by the Authority and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer