Find a Lawyer

Case Nos. 648/421 and 649/421 of 1985, decided on 5^th May, 1986.

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

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 2‑‑Employee of Food Department‑‑Shortage on wheat stores‑‑Recovery ordered‑‑Wheat stored first in . open in shape of "Gunjies" and then in house type godowns‑‑Authorised Officer who was immediate officer at spot exonerating appellants by holding that loss occurred as a result of heavy rains, infestation and other Vagaries of nature which was beyond control of appellants‑‑Order of authority ordering recovery not based on any documentary evidence or any logic which could negate verdict of Authorised Officer in this behalf nor in accordance with Policy decision of Department‑‑Order set aside and recovery imposed on appellants quashed in circumstances.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellants.

Ghulam Us Sayydain, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Messrs Muhammad Ibrahim Dasti, Assistant Food Controller, Mailsi and Ghulam Sarwar, Foodgrains Supervisor P.R. Centre, Mailsi, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against one impugned order, dated 4‑4‑1985, in which they have impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan; and Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. As the facts involved in these appeals are identical and arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, I will dispose of both these appeals by my this single judgment.

3. By virtue of these appeals, the appellants have prayed that the impugned order, dated 4‑4‑1985, be set aside and recovery ordered therein be quashed.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:‑

The appellants, Muhammad Ibrahim Dasti, was posted as Assistant Food Controller at P. R. Centre, Mailsi during 1981‑82 Scheme while Ghulam Sarwar, Foodgrains Supervisor was working under him at P.R. Centre, Mailsi. A quantity of 28,551.825 M. Tons wheat was purchased and stored at the said centre. As no storage accommodation was available at Mailsi Centre because of the fact that wheat stocks of previous scheme had been stored in the available House type Godowns and no accommodation whatsoever was available in the godowns for storing the wheat of the new Scheme 1981‑82, therefore, the wheat of the new Scheme 1981‑82 had to be stored, in the first instance, in open in the shape of Gunjies at various places. During the period of 10 months the stocks were exposed to rains, storms, heat and other Vagaries of weather. When the wheat of previous schemes was allocated and despatched to destinations then accommodation in House type godowns became available. On shifting to the godowns the wheat was fumigated but no fruitful results could be obtained due to the existing highly infested condition of the stocks. The Incharge of the Centre had regularly been reporting deteriorating condition of the stock after every fortnight, placed on record at Annexures‑A/1 to A/10. These stocks were also duly inspected by the higher authorities on various dates as per Inspection Notes placed on record as Annexures C, D and E. However, the Authorised Officer issued show‑cause notice, dated 29‑11‑1984, to which reply was submitted and all the circumstances were explained in detail. The Authorised Officer recommended that shortage had occurred due to open storage and recommended that as usual a sum of Rs.10,000 be written off in each unit. That by order, dated 4‑4‑1985, respondent No. 1 did not agree with the recommendations of the Authorised Officer and imposed recovery of shortage of quantity of 332.385 M. Tons wheat and allowed the remission of 1/10th of the loss in respect of each lot and has thus ordered a sum of Rs.10,67,573.02 be recovered from the Assistant Food Controller and Foodgrains Supervisor which the ratio of 6 : 4. The appellant submitted departmental appeals, dated 25‑5‑1985, to Respondent No. 2, but no decision was taken although a period of 90 days had expired. Hence these appeals. ,

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the overall percentage of shortage is 2.28% during the period of 2 years and 10 months, whereas against it, respondent No. 1 has allowed the allowance of 0.22, which was too negligible and was not commensurate with the actual loss. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the quantity stored viz. 28,551.825 M. Tons was quite enormous, therefore, the decision of respondent No. 1 by allowing 0.22 was a decision arbitrary in nature as well as unjust. He has challenged the observation of the Authority that the loss was unbelievable by arguing that the observation was incorrect in view of the precedents of the storage and shortage in the same Region as well as in other Regions. He has relied on the copy of the order, dated 26‑4‑1985, passed by the same Deputy Director in respect of wheat of Vehari Centre placed as Annexure J/1. He has further relied on the decision of Director of Food, Punjab, dated 2‑8‑1984, in the case of Rehmat Masih, A.F.C. Burewala, wherein he allowed the allowance of 2 in respect of Open Stock for a period of one year and also general standard allowed by him, in which it was observed that shortage in open 2 was quite normal. He has relied on the decision, dated 12‑7‑1984 of the Director Food Punjab, Annexure 'K' according to which loss of 2.5% during the period of about 7 months was considered quite normal and it was written off. It has been argued that

even the Government Experts have already assessed the average shortage of wheat in the process of storage. According to the Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, the average shortage is as follows:‑

(1) House‑type Godowns: 3% per 6 months or 6% per year.

(2) Open Stores 9% to 11% per year.

Similarly further reliance has been placed on the shortage worked out by NLC Headquarters G. H.Q., Rawalpindi, which also runs on the same lines.

7. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has supported the order of the learned Director of Food Punjab, on the ground that he being Incharge of the said Department, would be in a better position to evaluate loss and same may be maintained.

8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the arguments so made by the learned counsel, for the appellants are forceful based on documentary evidence Furthermore, it is also on record that the Authorised Officer, who was immediate officer at the spot has exonerated the appellants by holding that the loss so occurred during their tenure were beyond their control and were result of heavy rains, infestation and other Vagaries of the nature. In view of the arguments so given above I do not find any justification with the order of the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, which is not based on any documentary evidence nor any logic which could negate the verdict of the Authorised Officer in this behalf, nor in consonance with the policy decision of the Department.

9. In the light of the above detailed discussion I am fully convinced with the verdict of the Authorised Officer and proceed to accept the B appeals, set aside the impugned order and quash the recovery so imposed upon the appellants. There will be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Recovery quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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