Find a Lawyer

Case No. 314/560 of 1984, decided on 20th June, 1984.

(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑

‑‑‑Rr. 6(4), 7‑A & 8‑‑Dropping of charge‑‑Final decision is to be taken by authority‑‑Recommendation by Authorised Officer to drop charges, held, would not take away power of authority to impose penalty.

(b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑----

‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, Rr.6(4), 7‑A & 8‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Imposition of major penalty by authority despite recommendations by Authorised Officer to drop charge‑ ‑Foodgrain ‑Supervisor charged fur a loss/shortage in stock under his supervision‑‑Authorised Officer expressing positive opinion that loss was minimal and should be written off and recommending exoneration of accused official and dropping charge‑‑Authority without any cogent reason to repel findings of Authorised officer imposing major penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of loss Record indicative that accused‑appellant had taken all pre‑cautionary measures to safeguard wheat stock within his limit and repeatedly pointed out to higher authorities that stock should be disposed of‑‑Impugned penalty order', in circumstances, held, was liable to be set aside Tribunal accepting appeal and directing re‑instatement of appellant with all back benefits.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Abdul Ghafoor, ex‑Foodgrain 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 and Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

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

3.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has put in 30 years service in the Food Department as Supervisor and was working as Foodgrains Inspector at Mailsi in the year 1983, when he was served with charge‑sheet vide District Food Controller, Vehari (Authorised Officer) Letter No. 3708, dated 15‑11‑1983, under Rule 6(4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, on the allegations that a shortage of 18.977 metric tons was found at P.R. Centre Mailsi. He was called upon to explain his conduct and also to appear before him for personal hearing on 17‑11‑1983. The appellant submitted his reply on 17‑‑11‑1983 wherein he refuted the charge and stated that the wheat had been received from outside centres in a damaged condition as it had already been affected by Khappra and Susri and despite precautionary measures the deterioration could not be stopped. It was further submitted that loss is only to the extent of 0.147 per cent which was normal in view of long storage period of 1; years. The District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) heard the appellant and after going through the record and causes of deficiency of 18.977 metric tons, he exonerated the appellant of the charge and recommended to writ off the loss and drop the charges: The Authority however, did not agree and summoned the appellant for personal hearing and by his order, dated 7‑12‑1983 dismissed the appellant from service debarred him from further employment in Government Department/Organization with further direction for recovery of Rs.30,742.74. The appellant submitted an appeal to respondent No. 2 on 29‑12‑1983 through proper channel but as he has not received any reply from respondent No.2 he has filed this appeal after waiting for 90 days.

4. We 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 challenged the order as without jurisdiction on the ground that once the Authorised Officer A had dropped the charges there was no provisions under Rule 6(4) read) with Rule 8 of the E&D Rules, 1975, empowering the respondent No. 1 to impose major penalty on the appellant in such cases. The District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) had committed the error of submitting the record to respondent No.l by his letter, dated 21‑11‑1983 whereas under Rule 6(4) he had to drop the charges altogether when he had exonerated the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that respondent No.l had acted without jurisdiction and impugned order is nullity in the eye of law.

6. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the appellant had all along been bringing to the notice of the superior that the stock was not being cleared and was being damaged by rains etc. ‑It was submitted that the wheat was stored at 13 house type Godowns which was highly unsuitable for storage, and despite fumigation of stock twice no favourable effect was being noticed

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant had reported on 1‑11‑1980, 28‑2‑1981, 4‑5‑1981 and 31‑5‑‑1981 that the stocks were highly infected with Khappra and Susri and its condition was further deteriorating, therefore, this should be disposed of at the earliest. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Authorised Officer had fully exonerated the appellant and the authority had no reason to repel the recommendations of the Authorised Officer.

7. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has submitted that Rule 7‑A of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, fully empower the Authority to take action when he received the report of the Authorised Officer. According to the learned District Attorney the authority was fully justified to punish the appellant for his negligence.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the appellant vide his reports, dated 15‑11‑1983 had clearly informed the authority that the wheat received by him from the outside centre was already affected by Khappra and Susri and he was taking all care to keep it in good condition and at the same time he had brought to the notice of the authorities that it was likely to suffer shortage but that would be notional note. We have also seen Annexure 'P' in which entire picture has been pointed out by the appellant and copy of the same was forwarded to the Deputy Director Food on 20‑6‑1981.

9. So far as legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned we have no hesitation to repel the same as the p reading of Rule 7‑A of the E&D Rules, 1975, would show that Authorised Officer was under obligation to submit his report to the Authority and it was the authority to take final decision in the matter.

10. With regard to the merits of the case, we find that the appellant had taken all precautionary measures to safeguard the wheat stock which was within his limits and had pointed out repeatedly through his letters mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment to his superiors that the wheat stock was retained unnecessarily over a period of 1t years and outcome would be the damages and loss. It is also on record that the Authorised Officer after going through the entire situation and giving personal hearing to the appellant was of the positive opinion that the loss was minimal i.e. 21 Chattaks per bag and the same should be written off. We further find that the impugned order does not contain any cogent reason to repel the finding of the Authorised Officer. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above discussions, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondents to re‑instate the appellant with all back benefits, holding that loss of 21 D Chattaks per bag for which he has been visited with major penalty of dismissal and recovery of Rs.30,742.74, was a normal feature under the circumstances and the authority was not justified to punish him as he had been so punished. There will be no order as to costs.

A.B. 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.