Find a Lawyer

Case No. 194/618 of 1983, decided on 1st August, 1984.

(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (I% of 1974)‑‑

--‑‑S. 4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Food Department employee found responsible for loss of stock and was imposed penalty for recovery of loss to Department‑‑‑ Departmental appeal by civil servant still pending before Departmental Appellate Authority‑‑Service Tribunal disposing of appeal with direction to Departmental Appellate Authority to decide civil servants departmental appeal after examining whole issue, keeping in view pros and cons of case and also keeping in view his earlier order wherein civil servant was held not responsible for the loss which was due to reasons and circumstances beyond control of such civil servant.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Masood Ahmad Ghuman,

Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑‑Muhammad lqbal, Assistant Food Controller, Harappa, has made this appeal, under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan and the Director, Food Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders, dated 21‑7‑1983 and 20‑2‑1984 be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Food Inspector at Centre Qabula, Tehsil Pak Pattan, District Sahiwal during the year 1976. The appellant was held responsible for the negligence for not taking care of storage of wheat centres. The appellant alongwith Rana Jangbaz Khan, Foodgrains Supervisor were held responsible for the recovery vide order, dated 19‑8‑,1979 of Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan as follows:‑

(1) Sh. Muhammad Iqbal (appellant) Rs. 1,32,850.57

(2) Rana Jangbaz Khan, Foodgrain Supervisor. Rs. 66,425.28

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Rs. 1,99,275.85

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

The appellant made an appeal to the Director, Food Punjab, Lahore who remanded the case to the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan for fresh enquiry into the matter which should also cover the responsibility of the concerned officials in the office of the Deputy Food Controller, Sahiwal and Deputy Director Food, Multan vide order, dated 31‑3‑1980. Consequently, another enquiry was held into the matter and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan. The Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan issued another impugned order, dated 21‑7‑1983, whereby the recovery was reduced to Rs.98,781.48 against both the officials wherein the appellant was held responsible for the recovery of Rs.59,268.90 and Rs.39,512.58 to Rana Jangbaz Khan, Foodgrain Supervisor. The appellant made an appeal to the Director Food but no decision has been taken by the Director, Food Punjab, Lahore within the statutory period of 90 days. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney for the respondent assisted by the representative of the Department.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 who accepted the same vide order, dated 31‑3‑1980, wherein he had exonerated the appellant with the remarks that it was actually for the District Officer to take steps for the arrangements of earlier despatch/ allocation in respect of the stock lying in open and private godowns at their centres and the case was remanded to the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan for decision after fresh enquiry into the matter with the following findings given in the last para. of the order, dated 31‑3‑1980, which is reproduced below:‑

"In view of the above, I remand the case to the D.D.F. for decision after fresh enquiry into the matter which should also cover the responsibility of the concerned officials in the office of the D.F.C., Sahiwal and D.D.F., Multan."

It has been pointed out by appellant's counsel that in pursuance of the above order of the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, an enquiry was held by Storage Officer, Sahiwal, wherein the Enquiry Officer had recommended that the appellant is not at fault, as he had put in efforts to save the wheat from the rains what was by human efforts possible for him to do. Thus, he had done utmost efforts to save the wheat stock against the rains and also from the pests. Despite these clear recommendations from the Enquiry Officer, the appellant has been punished arbitrarily and has been allowed the benefit by writing off the stock for the value of loss so worked out at 1.26 K.G. instead of total loss, which was within the reasonable limit. It has been further pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the appellate authority, the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order, dated 31‑3‑1980, had actually exonerated the appellant totally from the loss and the enquiry was only required to be conducted against the concerned officials in the office of the District Food Controller, Sahiwal and Deputy Director, Food, Multan, as they were found responsible for the laxity. However, the Enquiry Officer unnecessarily has again involved the appellant in ' his enquiry and wherein he has taken no action to hold the enquiry against the concerned officials of the District Food Controller, Sahiwal and the Deputy Director, Food, Multan, to fix the responsibility.

6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan and has submitted that the concession has already been given by writing off the loss which was admissible in this case and the appellant has only been asked to make good the loss which could not be justified by him. Thus, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders which are correct and lawful orders.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. The appellant had filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 i.e. Director Food, Punjab, Lahore who accepted the same by an order, dated 31‑3‑1980 (Annexure 'W'). In the said order the appellate authority after inspecting the entire record arrived at the following conclusions:‑

"I have seen the relevant S‑I reports (16 in number) and found that the appellants have been requesting continuously from August to November, 1976 for early disposal of the stocks as these had been effected by Susri Khapra. I am convinced that apparently the appellant could not do, more than what they have done to avoid damage/loss to Government stocks, which were lying stored in open and improvised private godowns. 1 also agree that lot of time was required for saving of Government stocks to make them acceptable to the representative of N . ‑W . F . P. Government transportation from Qubula to Arifwala and for transit at the Railway Station Arifwala waiting for wagons with the result that after the receipt of allocation on 17‑11‑1976 stocks could not be cleared before September, 1977. I, therefore, find that appellants are not responsible for this loss which was due to the reasons and circumstances beyond their control. It was actually for the District Office to take steps for arranging early despatch allocation in respect of the stocks lying in the open and private godowns at this centre.

In view of the above, I remand the case to the D.D.F. for decision after fresh enquiry into the matter which should also cover the responsibility of the concerned officials in the office of the D.F.C., Sahiwal and D.D.F., Multan."

Consequently an enquiry was held against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer has made the following observations:‑---

In spite of all these facts, Enquiry Officer, made recommendations that the appellant be forgiven and the value of loss be written off at the rate of Rs.1.26 per K.G. including incidental charges instead of Rs.1.45 per kg. Consequently, the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan has passed the order, dated 21‑7‑1983, whereby recovery from Rs.1,99,275.85 was reduced to Rs.98,781.48 out of which appellant's share was determined to Rs.59,268.90.

8. Perusal of the enquiry report shows that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is itself controadictory. At one place it has been clearly held by the Enquiry Officer that the loss was beyond the human control and he has appreciated the role played by the appellant in saving the loss to the Government. He has even gone to the extent that if the proper care would not have been taken by the appellant, then the loss would have been more in view of the poor storage facilities, unprecedental rains and delays despatches, in spite of repeated calls of the appellant. Thus, it is not understood how the appellant was made responsible for the part of recovery in the impugned orders. It is also worth mentioning that no sanctity has been shown to the order of the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore, dated 31‑3‑1980, wherein it was directed that both the District Office as well as the Regional Office do not appear to have taken effective notice of this state of affairs and failed to take steps for disposal of stocks in question. This part of the order has not been dealt with at all whereas only the appellant and his colleague Foodgrain Supervisor have been made scape goats for this loss. Thus, it is clear that the directions of the Appellate Authority i.e. Director, Food Punjab, Lahore have not been complied with. We are at loss to understand that if the Departmental Authorities are convinced that this loss was beyond the human control then why they are shy to accept the same and to exonerate the appellant altogether rather than to recover loss from him beyond Rs.1.26 per K.G. This hesitation is not understood and it appears that the decision taken by the Departmental Authorities is inconsistent.

9. The important factor in this case is that the appeal is still pending before the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore for want of decision. He has to ensure that his directions given in his order, dated 31‑3‑1980 should have been complied with by the lower staff when deciding this issue.

10. The result of the above discussion is that the Director, Food, Punjab, Lahore is directed to examine the whole issue at his own level as the appeal of the appellant is still pending before him and decide this issue, keeping in view all the pros and cons of this case, also his earlier order, dated 31‑3‑1980, wherein he had himself held that the appellant is not responsible for the loss which was due to the reasons and circumstances beyond his control and it was actually for the District Office to take steps for arranging early despatch /allocation in respect of the stocks lying in the open and private godowns at this centre.

We dispose of the appeal accordingly.

A. E. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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