Find a Lawyer

No. 771/380 of 1985, decided on 16th June, 1986.

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

‑‑‑

R.6(3)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Food Inspector was imposed penalty of recovery of amount due to damage/shortage of wheat in go down‑‑Such civil servant confessing conceding and voluntarily depositing bulk of specified amount while balance amount was to be recovered subsequently--‑‑Justification for recovery, held, was fully established from record as well as disciplinary proceedings conducted against such civil servant‑‑Service Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with impugned order to extent of finding such civil servant guilty and imposing of penalty of recovery on him‑‑However, penalty of removal from service was converted to censure in view of frank confession of civil servant as well as his co‑operation for voluntary deposit of major amount of damage and undertaking to deposit balance amount subsequently.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

Ghulam‑us‑Sayyadain, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

.--‑‑Manzoor Ahmad, ex‑Food-grain Supervisor has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order, dated 8‑5‑‑1983 passed by the Deputy Director, Food, vide which the appellant was removed from the service and penalty as recovery of Rs.1,50,402 was also imposed on the appellant for the loss of the wheat and the wheat bags of the Food Department. The appellant has impleaded the Deputy Director Food and Director Food as respondents Nos.l and 2.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 8‑5‑1983 of the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region endorsed to the appellant on 17‑5‑1983 may be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in the service with all back benefits and the Deputy Director Food be directed to recover the bags from Zamindars to whom these were issued and to refund the price (value) of the bags already recovered from the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Manzoor. Ahmad was issued show‑cause notice, dated 7‑2‑1983 by the D.F.C., Vehari as follows: ‑

"That the appellant was found absent from Dullan Purchase Centre on 15‑7‑1982 and was suspended and the appellant had not yet handed over the record as well as the wheat stock of Dullan Centre and the Gunny Bags at Burewala Centre On ground of continuous absence of the appellant notice was published in the Newspaper (Nawa‑e‑Waqat) and the appellant was directed to appeal on 3‑11‑1982 before the D.F.C. The appellant did appear before the D.F.C. on 3‑11‑1982 and gave in writing that by 8‑11‑1982 he would deposit ten tons of wheat at the Burewala Centre or the value of the wheat would be deposited in. the Treasury. But in spite of the expiry of three months period neither the appellant deposited the wheat nor the value of the wheat.

The appellant was directed to appear before the D.F.C. on 21‑2‑1983 for explaining his position.

The appellant was issued another show‑cause notice, dated 20‑2‑1982 on basis of the audit of Wheat Scheme of 1982‑83 as follows:‑

That during posting of the appellant at Dullan Centre the Audit Party made the objections as under:‑

(i) That the appellant despatched 6,071.535 tons of wheat to N.L.C. Vehari and Burewala Centre but 3,237.171 tons of wheat was received short at N.L.C. Vehari Centre and 2,823.772 tons of wheat was received short at Burewala Centre, total 6,060.943 tons resulting en route shortage of 10.5922 tons. As such the appellant should either deposit 10.592 tons of wheat or its value should be deposited in the Treasury.

(ii) That according to the record and Stock Register of the M.T. Gunny Bags (Bardana) of Burewala and N.L.C. Centres that 244 bundles of bags and 162 bags were despatched to the appellant totalling to 73,362 bags out of which the appellant had shown the despatch of 65,753 bags and balance of 7,609 bags are yet to be recoverable from the appellant. Besides that 9 2000 bricks and six Tarpaulines, 307 Kg. of Taat (Hesian Cloth) and 337 Kg. of Patri (Steel Binding Tape) was recoverable from the appellant in kind or in cash.,

(iii) Rs.600 were paid in excess and the appellant should deposit the same amount.

The appellant was directed to appear before the D.F.C. for explaining his position on 6‑3‑1983.

The appellant neither appeared on 21‑2‑1983 in compliance of show‑cause notice, dated 7‑2‑‑1983 nor appeared on 6‑3‑1983 in compliance of the notice, dated 20‑2‑1983. Instead the appellant appeared before the D.F.C. on 15‑3‑1983 but did not file any written reply or anything in answer to the show‑cause notice and again disappeared and did not turn up till 20‑3‑1983. The D.F.C, forwarded the case to the Deputy Director Food recommending a major penalty. The Deputy Director Food issued a notice, dated 5‑4‑1983 to the appellant for his personal appearance and the appellant did appear before the Deputy Director Food on 3‑4‑1983 and 8‑5‑1983. The appellant could not give any plausible defence of his absence from duty and beside that the following item, were also recoverable from the appellant reference to the above notice:‑

Accordingly the Deputy Director Food imposed the penalty of the recovery as well as removed the appellant from service on basis of misconducts of the appellant detailed in the show‑cause notice. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal to the Director Food and after expiry of 90 days submitted the instant appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

4. At the time of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the absence of the appellant was due to the fact that his sister was indisposed for which he submitted his application to the D.F.C. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the absence of the appellant was only for 5 days. As regards further absence that occurred during the suspension period of the appellant and could not be treated as absence from duty. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant deposited the cost of 10,592 tons of wheat under pressure, vide receipt, dated 4‑6‑1983 (copy Annexure 'E‑1' of the appeal). The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the cost of the bags should have been recovered from the Zamindars but despite that the appellant deposited 3500 A‑Class bags on 1‑11‑1984, vide receipt at Annexure 'F' of the appeal. Similarly he adjusted call deposits regarding 400 bags. Furthermore 279 A‑Class bags and 2500 A‑Class bags were deposited on 25‑2‑1984, vide receipt Annexure 'F‑I and receipt, dated 10‑2‑1984 Annexure 'F‑II'. Only Rs.37,352 is outstanding against the appellant as per statement prepared by the D.F.C. (Annexure 'G') of the appeal) because the appellant had paid Rs.1,12,059 towards the recovery. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the appellant was treated in a discriminatory manner because other officers of the Food Department were treated lightly.

Learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant was rightly removed from the service and also imposed the penalty of the recovery. The learned Deputy District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant had almost confessed and conceded the recoveries and accordingly made good the loss of wheat and the bags to the extent of Rs.1,12,059 and the balance of Rs.37, 352 was yet to be recovered from the appellant. Similarly the absence of the appellant was also conceded and established and it could not be excused on ground of indisposition of sister of the appellant.

6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Attorney on 27‑4‑1986 the judgment was reserved and as volunteerer by the appellant and his learned counsel the remaining amount of recovery was to be deposited by the appellant and receipt to be produced more this Tribunal after which the judgment

was to be given. Today the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted an application that the remaining amount would be paid by the appellant in three equal instalments after every two months commencing from 1‑7‑1986.

7. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and. learned Deputy District Attorney for the respondents. We have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections of the Respondent Department. It is on the record that the appellant confessed and conceded the recoveries and voluntarily deposited Rs.1,12,059 and only the amount of Rs.37,352 is to be recovered from the appellant being the balance of the recovery. The justification of the recovery is also fully established from the record as well as the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the appellant. In addition to the penalty of recovery imposed over the appellant he was also removed from the service on basis of the misconducts detailed in para. No.3 of this judgment as well as the absence from duty without leave. There appears no ground to interfere with the impugned order to the extent of finding the appellant guilty and the imposition of the penalty of recovery but it is to be considered whether the second penalty of removal of the appellant from service is also justified In this regard considering the frank confession of the appellant as well as his co‑operation for voluntary deposit of major amount of recovery to the extent of Rs.1,12,059 and undertaking to deposit the balance of Rs.37,352 by three instalments, as such while maintaining the impugned order of the recovery against the appellant the penalty of removal from service is converted to the Censure.

8. Hence there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order except that the penalty of removal from service is converted to the 'Censure'. The outstanding amount of recovery of Rs.37,352 to be deposited by the appellant in three equal instalments commencing from g 1‑7‑1986 failing the Respondent Department would be at liberty to get it recovered through the Collector of the District as arrears of land revenue and this may also attract departmental action for not fulfilling his undertaking. The period of absence to be treated as leave of the kind due to the appellant.

No order for the cost.

A.A. 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.