Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑R. 6‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Foodgrain Supervisor charged for shortage of stores‑‑Recovery of alleged loss imposed by adopting show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Written complaints and requests by employee about insufficient arrangements of proper storage‑‑Enquiry Officer, held, was not justified to impose penalty without pinpointing either inefficiency or act of misappropriation by employee‑‑Imposition of penalty would not be justifiable and resultantly was set aside by Tribunal.

Sadiq Ahmad Khan and M.A. Zafar for Appellant.

Ghulam‑us‑Sayyadain Dy. District Attorney for Respondents.

Rashid Ahmad, Food-grains Supervisor, has filed this appeal under' section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur and the District Food Controller, Rahimyar Khan as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that his appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 9‑4‑1985, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a Food-grain Supervisor and was posted at Purchase Centre Tardinda Muhammad Panah. During the year 1983‑84 he purchased 5519.785 tons of wheat out of which 4794.685 tons was stored in 17 Gunjies. On final clearance of stocks a quantity of 87.780 tons was found short. On this the Deputy Director Food asked the District Food Controller, Rahimyar Khan to proceed against the appellant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, and to submit report for further action. The District Food Controller, Rahimyar Khan issued show cause Notice to the appellant charging him with inefficiency, negligence and misappropriation. After formal enquiry respondent No.3 submitted his report to Respondent No‑2 to the effect that shortage was due to rains and storage of wheat in the open. He however, recommended that loss to a reasonable extent be written off. On receipt of the report Respondent No.2 observed that the loss caused to Government was abnormal, therefor:, he ordered that shortage upto the extent of 0.5% in each Gunji be written off and the cost of 64256.575 Kgs. of wheat valuing Rs.1,33,653.60 be recovered from the appellant in three equal monthly instalments within three months and des-posited in the Government treasury. The appeal submitted appeal before respondent No.l, which is still undecided. He has approached this Tribunal for relief.

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

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not at all on fault as it has been proved that the loss was due to non‑supply of proper storage facilities in spite of repeated requests in the monthly reports submitted by the appellant. It has been further argued that the learned Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur, has not found the appellant guilty of any charge and has imposed penalty, which was fully unjustified. It was forcefully argued that the appellant being a low paid official had no personal means to safeguard the stock as the wheat was stored in open Kacha Floor at the mercy of ravages of heavy rains and floods. He has laid emphasis that the appellant had tried time and again by asking the Department to clear the stock but the same was unheaded.

6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has resisted the claim of the appellant and has submitted that the Deputy Director Food Respondent No.2 gave him a reasonable allowance and thus his order was fully justified.

7. This Tribunal has given its anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that there are written complaints and requests in the form of Annexures J/1 to J/12 of the appellant, duly) received by the Department, as acknowledgment of the same is borne on the record. This being the factual. position Respondent No.2 was not justified to impose penalty without pin‑pointing either inefficiency or any act of misappropriation by the appellant. This Tribunal has taken into account the report of the District Food Controller, Rahimyar A Khan, who has, completely exonerated the appellant from the charge but in the end without assigning any reason has observed that the loss ‑to a reasonable extent may be written off. Unless and untill the justification of this observation is available on record either in the order of District Food Controller or in the impugned order of Respondent No.2, it would not be possible for this Tribunal to maintain the same. He did all, what was possible within his limits and powers to safeguard the wheat stock which was lying positively in open Gunjies on Kacha Floor, and also discharged his moral as well as legal obligation by submitting constant reports to the respondents in which it was clearly indicated as under:--

8. In view of the above this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 is neither justified nor legal particularly when there is nothing on record to show that the charge of inefficiency, negligence or misappropriation stood proved against the appellant.

9. Resultantly the appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

A.A. 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.