Find a Lawyer

Case No. 339/749 of 1984, decided on 20^th June, 1984.

‑‑‑R. 7‑A‑‑Major penalty of dismissal from service‑‑Imposition of‑ Imposition‑ by competent authority of major penalty of dismissal from service on employee notwithstanding his exoneration by Authorized Officer, held, would fall within purview of R. 7 of Efficiency and, Discipline Rules, 1975.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Dismissal of employee on charge of absolutely negligible loss, held, being unjustifiable would be set aside by Service Tribunal ordering reinstatement of employee in service with back benefits.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

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

2. By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed that the order of respondent No. 1, dated 7‑12‑1983 be set aside and appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Foodgrains Supervisor at P.R. Centre Gaggoo, tehsil Burewala District Vehari during the period from 1979 to 1982. A charge‑sheet was served upon him, vide District Food Controller, Vehari (Authorised Officer) Letter No. 3514, dated 2‑11‑1983, under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (G&D) Rules, 1975. The allegation was that a shortage of 10,269 tons out of total storage of 5,935,093 tons was found at P.R Centre Gagoo and the appellant was found responsible for the same. The appellant submitted his reply in which he refuted the charges so levelled against him and submitted that the wheat had been received from outside centre of Multan and Muzaffargarh districts in damaged condition as it had already been infested by Khapra and Susri and despite precautionary measures deterioration could not be stopped, therefore, he was not responsible for the loss as the loss was only to the extent of .17 per cent which was negligible in view of long storage period spreading over 1i years. The District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) heard the appellant who after going through the record of case for the shortage of 10,269 tons, exonerated the appellant of the charge and recommended the write off of the loss. Respondent No. 1 summoned the appellant for personal hearing on 7-12‑1983 and dismissed him from service as well as debarred him from further employment in Government Department organization with further directions for recovery of Rs.16,635.78 The appellant submitted an appeal to respondent No. 2 through proper channel on 29‑12‑1983 and after waiting for 90 days he has filed this appeal before this Tribunal.

(4) We 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 entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) had proceeded against the appellant under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, and after considering his reply as well as relevant record of the, centre, found the appellant not guilty of any charge as well as recommended for writing off the loss, therefore, there was no justification for respondent No. 1 to proceed against him as the charges against him stood automatically dropped. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was hardly any provision under rule 6(4) read with rule 8 of the (E a D) Rules, 1975, empowering the respondent No. 1 to impose major penalty on the appellant when no such penalty was recommended by the Authorised Officer. In this manner the impugned order was challenged as without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law.

6. While dealing with the merits of the case learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) went into the entire details of this case and was of the considered opinion that as wheat had been received from Sahiwal and Muzaffargarh Districts, already infested with Khapra and Susri, therefore, the damage which had occurred was due to no fault of the appellant who had taken all precautionary measure to his minimal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the loss was to the extent of 0.17 per cent 21 Chhattanks per bag, which was negligible and recommended to be written off. It was vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 did not a give any cogent reason to challenge the recommendations of the Authorised Officer and simply by sweeping order imposed major penalty of dismissal from service with further observation that the appellant would stand debarred from entering into any service of Government/ organization. It was further submitted that when the appellant was absolutely innocent, the recovery of a sum of Rs.16,635.78 was highly unjustified.

On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so submitted by the Department and has submitted that the orders of dismissal of the appellant and recovery of Government loss were issued under lawful authority by respondent No. 1, in pursuance of provisions under rule 7‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, therefore, he was quite competent to impose major penalty of dismissal as well as recovery of Government loss. In this manner he has Submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant in his report of wheat stock pertaining to 1980‑81 Scheme had informed the authorities on 16‑8‑1980 that the wheat stock was being damaged since the beginning of the month of August and also suffered from Khapra and Susri despite the best efforts of the appellant. He has also further reported that the fumigants were being applied but the same were showing no effect. He requested the authorities to remove the wheat as early as possible. He kept on reporting continuously while submitting his statements from time to time but no arrangement was made to remove the wheat. We have also taken into consideration Exh. K which is another report of the appellant, dated 31‑1‑1981, in which he has submitted that although Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Contractor, who started lifting the wheat but the same had suffered considerable damage by Khapra and Susri and the gunni bags had also been damaged due to rains. All these reports have been placed on record by the appellant alongwith his appeal. A copy of the inspection note recorded by Mr. Abdur Rauf Khan, District Food Controller, Vehari, with reference to the contention of the appellant so made above is also placed on record. The Inquiry Report Annexure 'C' reveals that the appellant was served with show‑cause notice and was afforded personal hearing by the said Authorised Officer. According to the recommendations of the Authorised Officer, the explanation given by the appellant was quite satisfactory to great extent and it was found that the loss of 21 Chhatanks equal to 140 grm. per Bag, which had occurred under his supervision during the past 2J years was in fact a negligible loss and the same was recommended to be written off.

8. In these circumstances we do not find any cogent reasons given by the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region in his order, dated 7‑12‑1983, by which he has imposed major penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of loss from the appellant. What he has said was that the reasons given by the Authorised Officer were not convincing as according to him it was the duty of the appellant to exercise full care and take proper steps to save the wheat stock from F infestation. In these circumstances we do not find any justification to hold the appellant guilty of this loss which is absolutely negligible as it is a matter of common knowledge and experience that if a bag of wheat is stored for 1; years under the adverse conditions of rains, etc. the loss of 21 Chhatanks would be even less than the normal loss. However, we have no hesitation to repel the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the charges stood automatically dropped when the Authorised Officer had exonerated him. We will place our reliance on rule 7‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, which empowers the Authorised Officer to submit the case with the relevant material documents to the authority for proper orders.

9. The result is we proceed to accept the appeal on merits set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the B appellant holding that loss of 21 Chhatanks per bag for which he has been visited with major penalty of dismissal and recovery if fts.16,635.78, was a normal feature under the circumstances and the authority was not justified to punish him as he has been so punished. He will be entitled to all back benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A.A. 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.