Find a Lawyer

Case No.171 of 1986, decided on 26^th April, 1986.

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

‑‑‑

R.

6‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Food grains supervisor was imposed penalty of recovery of amount due to damage/shortage of wheat‑‑Claim of G.P. Fund and balance of pay during L.P.R. also included in petition‑‑Petition, held, would suffer from legal defect being not in form of appeal and nobody having been impleaded as respondent‑‑Non‑filing of copy of impugned order from which such civil servant felt aggrieved and petition being time‑barred would be further considerations for rejection of same‑‑Petition of civil servant being defective and showing no cause of action would not be maintainable in circumstances.

Petitioner in Person.

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

.---‑‑Muhammad Siddiq Retired Food-grain Supervisor, Amroka, District Bahawalnagar, has filed a petition on the ground that though he was retired on 8‑1‑1980 and his L.P.R. expired on 8‑1‑1981 but he was given half pay for period of the L. P. R . and was retired when actually he was under suspension. Beside that the petitioner contended that he has not been paid G.P. Fund which is approximately Rs.6,000. The petitioner further stated that during Storage Scheme of Wheat for the year 1976‑77 of Amroka Centre, District Bahawalnagar, the Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur ordered recovery of Rs.1,56,000 as penalty over him of which Rs.30,000 were remitted by the Director Food, Lahore and the balance of Rs.1,26,000 the petitioner has yet to pay to the department. According to the version of the petitioner the penalty was unjustified. The petitioner has prayed that the entire amount be set aside and the petitioner be paid arrears of pay, gratuity and pension.

2. Before the case could be admitted to regular hearing the petitioner was heard in person on 26‑4‑1986. He narrated the same facts namely that he was retired on 8‑1‑1980 but has not been paid any arrears of pay and the G.P. Fund. The petitioner also contended that he was imposed penalty of Rs.1,56,000 by the Deputy Director Food during Storage Scheme of Wheat for the year 1976‑77 of Amroka Centre, District Bahawalnagar and Rs.30,000 were remitted by the Director Food, Lahore and the balance of Rs.1,26,000 are yet to be recovered from him as penalty. The petitioner prayed for. the setting aside the order of recovery and also payment of arrears of pay of the G.P. Fund as well as the pension and the gratuity.

3. We have carefully considered the points so raised by in, petitioner. This petition suffers from many legal defects. For instance to start with it is not in the form of appeal because the petitioner has not impleaded any person as respondent, such as the Deputy Director and Director Food. The petition is addressed to the Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal instead of proper appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. Secondly the petitioner has not attached any impugned orders against which he feels aggrieved. Thirdly the petition is apparently time‑barred because the petitioner according to his own statement was retired on 8‑1‑1980 and the impugned penalty regarding shortage of the wheat of 1976‑77 Scheme was presumably imposed upon him preceding I to his retirement but neither he exhausted any further remedy with the Secretary Food nor promptly filed an appeal with the Punjab Service Tribunal if no such remedy was available to him. Lastly he has not sought separate remedies for the G.P. Fund, the pension, gratuity and arrears of pay with the competent authorities to show that he was, entitled to the same and had exhausted all the departmental remedies. May be that he failed because he did not contest the order of the recovery after decision of the Director Food who remitted Rs.30,000 and balance of the penalty amounting to Rs.1,26,000 is yet recoverable from him. In such a case this may be the position that his dues may be under the attachment of the department for recovery of the said penalty.

4. Hence we find no force in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

No order for the cost.

A.A. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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