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.374/174 of 1985, decided on 29th October, 1985.
‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Matter requiring fixation of responsibility‑‑Enquiry to be conducted‑‑Food Inspector (appellant) imposed penalty of recovery of amount due to damage/shortage of wheat in Godown under his charge but without enquiry‑‑Record indicative that construction of Bins was defective and appellant requesting higher authorities for early shifting of stock to save from damage‑‑Case, in circumstances, held, required proper enquiry to fix responsibility on appellant‑‑Service Tribunal setting aside impugned order and remanding case to Authority for proceeding afresh by conducting enquiry and defence opportunity to appellant.
Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
.‑‑Zaheer Haider, Ex‑Food Inspector has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Director, Food, Faisalabad and the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 18‑11‑1974 of respondent No.1 imposing recovery of Rs.69,521.08 be set aside, being illegal against the facts of the case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Messrs Zaheer Haider, Ex‑Foodgrains Inspector and Abdul Qaudeer Tariq, Foodgrains Supervisor posted at P.R. Centre, Chak Kurriana, District Jhang during the year 1982‑83 had shown a Godown shortage of 47.681 M. Tons of Indigenous wheat. Accordingly both the officials were proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 by the District Food Controller, Jhang in his capacity as Authorised Officer. After observing all the required formalities, the Authorised Officer forwarded the recommendations to the respondent No.1 vide Memo. No. JHG‑SC(84)/820, dated 25‑10‑1984. The Deputy Director, Food, Faisalabad Region, being authority heard the appellant alongwith other co‑accused and examined the relevant record. However, Abdul Quadeer Tariq, Foodgrains Supervisor was exonerated from the charge. The appellant was imposed a penalty of recovery amounting to Rs.69,521.08 vide order, dated 18‑11‑1984 of respondent No.1, for the shortage. The appellant made an appeal to the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore, on 20‑2‑1985. After awaiting for 90 days and receiving no result, the appellant has filed this appeal to this Tribunal within the stipulated period. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties, i.e. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been held responsible for the shortage arbitrarily against the facts of the case and without any justification. He has submitted that the wheat was stored in the Bini‑shell Godowns which had been recently constructed at that time and were defective. He has referred to the letter of District Food Controller, Jhang addressed to the Officer Incharge National Logestics Cell, Project, Jhang, dated 2‑9‑1982 and has submitted that the defects in the construction and drawbacks were reported by the District Food Controller, Jhang. In such type of Godowns fumigation was also not possible. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to number of reports made by the appellant to show that the appellant was continously reminding the higher authorities that the newly‑constructed Godowns were defective. The wheat stock stored in these Godowns was damped due to excessive moisture and there was every possibility of damage of this stock. The immediate shifting of the stock was necessary. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was transferred from the centre despite the request of the appellant that not to transfer him from this place till the clearance of this stock. The stocks were finally cleared in his absence on 4‑1‑1984, within a storage period of one year and five months. Thus, the appellant has been made responsible for the circumstances beyond his control and also for the negligence and carelessness of other officers as well.
No enquiry was held to probe into the matter. The appellant has been held responsible for the shortage arbitrarily without proving the same. The percentage of shortage was such which was admissible to be written off by the Food Department in view of their procurement policy and circumstances of the storage conditions beyond human control.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted in extenso the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the appellant was responsible for the shortage so attributed to him which had happened due to his negligence and carelessness. Hence, he has been rightly held responsible for the shortage and recovery of the Government loss. Thus, no exception can be taken against the impugned order which is a valid and lawful order.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record of this case very carefully. The record shows that the defective construction of Bini‑shell Godowns was reported by the District Food Controller, Jhang to the Officer Incharge, National Logestics Cell Project, Jhang, wherein the wheat was, stored. it is also clear from the record that the appellant had been requesting the higher authorities for earlier removal/ shifting of this stock. The wheat was finally removed from the stores after al period of one year and 5 months. Thus, the matter was such that an enquiry should have been got conducted by the respondent No. 1 to fix responsibility on the appellant. We consider that the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter. The shortage has been arbitrarily attributed to the appellant without affording an opportunity to defend himself by producing the record and the evidence and proving the same against the appellant.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned order, dated 18‑11‑1984 of respondent No. 1 is set aside. The case is remanded to the "Authority" to proceed against the appellant by way of conducting an Enquiry as per procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 so that an opportunity is afforded to the appellant to defend himself.
There is no order as to costs.
A.E.
Appeal accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer