Find a Lawyer

Case No. 345/776 of 1984, decided on 17th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, Rr.6, 7‑A a 8‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Such penalty imposed in disregard of recommendation of Authorised Officer‑‑Service Tribunal, held, would give due weight to recommendations of Authorised Officer, same being based on cogent reasons supported by facts and figures‑‑Penalty of dismissal being harsh and unjustifiable set aside by Service Tribunal directing re‑instatement of employee in service asking such employee to pay partially for financial loss to Government.

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

Said Muhammad ex‑Foodgrains Inspector, 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 as well as Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 7‑12‑1983, passed by respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Foodgrain Inspector, Dokota, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari, where huge quantity of wheat weighing 16,967.183 tons was stored in open in Cunjees in Chaudary Cotton Factory Dokota, from where the same was lifted from time to time, to various destinations. Ultimately a checking was done as the stock of wheat had to be cleared, it was found that shortage of 165.939 tons had occurred. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by the Authorised Officer (District Food Controller, Vehari) who went at the spot, made enquiries and came to the conclusion that the colossal loss which had occurred in this case was neither embezzlement, theft nor for any ulterior motive. What he concluded was due to heavy rains and infestation of Khapra and Susri and attributed this due to heavy rainfall which occurred in the months of July and August in the year 1981. While concluding his inquiry he also mentioned that this fact was verified by the Deputy Director Food also besides his personal findings. He in the end recommended that maximum quantity of wheat may be written off in favour of appellant. The Deputy Director Food while going through the case did not agree with the recommendations of the Authorised Officer and found that the appellant was guilty of embezzlement, misappropriation and gross negligence. He dismissed the appellant from service and imposed upon him a recovery of Rs.3,02,008.90, being the cost of 165.939 tons of wheat. On appeal before the Director of Food, it has been stated at Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that he was pleased to reduce 55.87 tons of wheat but otherwise maintain the order of Deputy Director Food. It has also been stated at Bar that 22 tons have also been accounted for because the same quantity of wheat was sent to PR Mailsi but somehow or other a mention of the same was not made in the same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant it is pointed out in the audit report also. Hence this appeal.

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 has submitted that the man at the spot would be the Authorised Officer who was otherwise also District Food Controller under whom the appellant was serving as such. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the very reading of the report would reveal that he never stated the appellant is dishonest person, guilty of embezzlement misappropriation or wilful absence. The crux of the report is that all this loss had occurred due to heavy rains and infestation of Khapra and Susri and that the stock being stored in open Cunjees. He also referred to the earlier two judgments passed in identical cases of Messrs Inamur Rahim and Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, wherein the opinion of the Authorised Officer was given weight and the decision of the competent authority was not set aside on the ground that he has given no cogent reasons to differ with the man on the spot. It was urged that the appellant be exonerated.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that even keeping in view the report of the Authorised Officer it cannot be said that he has completely exonerated the appellant but has only recommended in view of the special circumstances of the case to give him maximum relief if possible. It has been explained that the appellant should have acted in more vigilant manner and should have saved the Government property of which he was the custodian.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find from the record that the appellant from the very outset was opposed to the strange of wheat in a place which was situated in low lying conditions and had written in his note that this should be avoided. It is also on the record that in further reports on a number of occasions, he kept on pointing out to the authority that the condition of wheat was deteriorating due to heavy rains and the stock was vulnerable due to Susri and Khapra. It is also on the record that when the wheat was weighed it was found that in fact a loss of 4 Kgs. in each bag was the result of Khapra and Susri dust, which had occurred due to the have played by these insects. I have also examined the order of the Deputy Director Food which has been impugned before this Tribunal and find that it is also a sweep judgment without giving a single reason of disagreement with the findings of the Authorised Officer (D.F.C.) who has quoted in various reports as one of the witnesses of the sorry wheat earlier. There is no initial complaint against the appellant from any quarter, official or non‑official that he was a person of dishonest nature or he was indulging in activities which were capricious. I do not understand how the Deputy Director Food came to the conclusion that this loss which has occurred at the centre where the appellant was incharge was due to his wilful inefficiency, misappropriation and embezzlement so caused by him. In view of the above analysis of the case I would give more weight to the assessment of the District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) which is based on cogent reasons supported by facts and figures and thus set aside the impugned order being harsh and unjustified. The appellant has got 18 years service and I do not find anything from the record to hold that he has been indulging in such a corrupt practice before which has not been taken into consideration by the competent authority.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out by filing copy of the judgment of the predecessor of present competent authority in which he has passed order in such circumstances to a maximum to show that in cases where there is no positive proof of embezzlement/ misappropriation and dishonesty of small officials like the appellant should not be burdened with impossible cost which may prove a luster on the camel's back.

9. In view of the above I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and re‑instate the appellant in service. However, he will have to pay the cost of 10 tons of wheat as the Authorised Officer did not' completely recommend the entire remission. The period in which he' remained out of service will be considered as leave of the kind due. There will be no order as to costs.

A. A. Dismissal set aside.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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