Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. 407(R) of 1985 and 83 (L) of 1984 decided on 12th February,1984.

‑‑‑S.17 (1‑A)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Appellant charged for committing irregularities while posted as Divisional Accountant and for failing to check unnecessary and excessive purchases of store materials, made by Executive Engineer without administrative approval and technical sanction, and for his further failure to check paid vouchers properly‑‑All purchases were made on demand of field officers after obtaining non‑availability certificate from competent Authority and no violation was committed by appellant‑‑Charges against appellant either unsustainable or devoid of any merit‑‑Checking of suppliers bills from view point of administrative approval and technical sanction not falling under purview of Accounts checking‑‑Appellant having a brilliant record and all officers under whom he served holding high opinion of him‑ Although there existed some sort of negligence on part of appellant which had been successfully explained yet case of appellant not fit for taking drastic action under S. 17 (1‑A) of Act XXXI of 1958‑‑Order of removal from service set aside and appellant reinstated into service with consequential benefits.

Sardar M. Amir Akbar Khan for Respondent.

Dates of hearing; 22nd May and 17th July. 1986.

‑‑The appellant, Abdul Latif Qureshi, while serving as Accounts Assistant under the WAPDA, was removed from service under section 17 (1‑A) of the WA PDA Act, 1958 by order dated 12‑1‑1984. The appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal against his removal from service on 12‑2‑1984.

2. The appellant joined WAPDA as Accounts Assistant on 15‑9‑1966. The appellant completed his training from 22‑1‑1969 to 26‑4‑1969 and successfully passed the examination and secured 1st position in the examination and in recognition thereof was granted an advance increment by the Chief Accountant (Power) WAPDA, Lahore vide Office Order No. 685, dated 27‑6‑1969. The appellant was appointed Divisional Accountant on 10‑1‑1976 in the office of the XEN McLeod Road Division, Lahore.

3. We have examined the service record of the appellant and we are satisfied that the services of the appellant were always appreciated by his superiors and that he was recommended for accelerated promotion on more than one occasion. Ordinarily, the appellant's removal was not justified, unless any special circumstances existed. The appellant apprehended and the respondent WAPDA did not deny that the action against the appellant was taken because of some irregularities which had been detected while he was posted as Divisional Accountant McLeod Road Division, Lahore.

4. In the written objection it was stated that the appellant was found guilty on the following counts:‑

(1) He failed to check the material and T&P items, purchased by the XEN, at higher rates, resulting in a loss of Rs.3,34,239 and Rs.1,91,198 to the Authority.

(2) Being primary auditor, he did not object to the unnecessary purchase of 46 Nos. Steel Stock worth Rs.1,49,000 and P.V.C/ Core Copper from non‑manufacturers which resulted in loss to Authority in the amount of Rs.1,14,975 and Rs.54,546,29 respectively.

(3) He failed to check the splitting and exceeding the financial powers of XEN, who exercised such powers for making maximum purchase at his own level.

(4) He did not object to the order of the XEN, who issued 36 Nos. P.O. beyond his competency of Rs.7,000 at a time.

(5) He failed to object to the order of the XEN, who made un‑necessary and excessive purchases of stores without regard to the immediate incorporation in work, but for keeping in stock for which he was not competent.

(6) Being Financial Adviser of XEN, he did not object to purchasing centralized material for Rs.34,450.25 without proper approval.

(7) He failed to object to purchasing the T&P items without administrative approval and technical sanction.

(8) He did not object to purchasing the furniture worth Rs.3,16,766 and Rs.1,27,255 without administrative approval.

(9) Executive Engineer McLeod Road was not responsible for supplying three pins Brass‑holders. He as primary auditor failed to object this purchase.

(10) He failed to check the paid vouchers properly, therefore, a sum of Rs.39,905 was paid on three vouchers without pre‑audit from Dir: Acs AEB.

5. A High Powered Committee was constituted by the Authority to carry out thorough examination into the irregularities and check the purchase of store materials and tools and plant. As a result of the findings of the said Committee action was taken against the appellant and several other officers.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the WAPDA as well as the departmental representative. The main case of the appellant is that he was neither responsible for making necessary purchases nor he had the authority to call for tenders and that at no stage he committed the irregularities.

7. We have gone through the enquiry report. The report has dealt within detail the involvement of different officers of WAPDA relating to the purchase or unnecessary material and some other material on higher rates and also for the purchase of material below standard. The appel lant gave a very detailed reply to the charges levelled against him and clearly denied quoting relevant authorities and approval of his superior officers who ordered the purchases.

8. The extract of the letter from Office of the Manager Finance (Distribution), WAPDA, Napier Road, Lahore, dated 19‑3‑1984 is appended below in this regard:

"Kindly refer to your letter No. 10608/DMA/WP‑35, dated 26‑2‑1984 on the above quoted subject.

As you are aware, it is not the responsibility of the Accounts personal to check the responsibility of the rates. They are neither competent nor in the position to do so. However, a vigilant watch can be exercised by them in keeping with their experience and the rates at which similar work are carried out from time to time by the various formations in these cases where it appears that the rates are excessive. Moreover in such case the matter should be brought in the notice of Chairman, Area‑Board."

9. The major points raised by the learned counsel for the respondent relate to the powers of the Executive Engineer which should have been checked by the appellant, for example:

(1) Splitting of bills, in order to bring within the financial power of the Executive Engineer.

(2) Purchase of items which were purchasable only centrally and for the Executive Engineer.

(3) Acceptance of higher rates.

(4) Purchase of certain items without administrative approval and technical sanction.

(5) Purchase of unnecessary and excessive stores by the Executive Engineer without regard to the vigilant increase in work for which he was not competent.

(6) Failing to check and object properly.

10. It may be mentioned here that all the said irregularities have been committed by the Executive Engineer concerned and it was only passing the bills with which the appellant was concerned.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant explained that the responsibilities of the appellant do not include the checking of irregularities mentioned above. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant could not be made to check the exercise of powers by the Executive Engineer concerned in this regard because calling of the purchase tenders is the sole responsibility of Executive Engineer and not that of the appellant. According to the appellant there is nothing on record that this was done with the concurrence of the appellant. He, therefore, cannot be made a party at this stage.

12. As far as centrally purchased items, the appellant being Divisional Accountant, this responsibility cannot be placed on him. It was for the Executive Engineer to make a request for supply of centrally purchased items through Chief Engineer Purchase and Disposal. The bills are to be checked by the Divisional Accountant to see:‑

(1) That the same is accompanied by the following documents:‑

(i) purchase order issued by the competent authority.

(ii) relevant page of the stock Measurement Book

(iii) non‑availability certificate from the Regional stores concerned.

(2) That it has been certified by the officer making the local purchase that the same has been made for immediate incorporation in a duly sanctioned work.

(3) That the quantities and rates of the items shown in the bill agree with those shown in the relevant purchase order and page of the Stock Measurement Book. That other conditions such as terms of delivery in the purchase order have been fulfilled.

(4) That monetary limits laid down for individual purchases and for purchases during the financial years have not been exceeded.

(5) That the supplies have been made within the stipulated delivery period and in case of delayed supplies, penalty has been imposed on the suppliers in accordance with the terms of the purchase order.

(6) That it has been certified by the appropriate purchasing officer that the items purchased locally are not covered by the rate contract concluded by the Authority/Director‑General Purchase.

13. As for the acceptance of excessive rates is concerned, we were shown a chart of the rates paid for by various Divisions of Lahore Region duly signed by the Director A/S. , A.E.B. Lahore, which clearly shows that the rates accepted by the Executive Engineer, McLeod Road Division, Lahore, were in conformity with the rates prevailing in the market. That these rates were almost similar and identical to those paid for by other Divisions of Lahore Region and hence, no irregularity has been committed by the purchasing Agency.

14. As regard the allegations contained in Charge No. I, it was submitted that it was entirely unsustainable because it was the duty of the Director Accounts Area Electricity Board to keep watch over the prices prevailing amongst the WAPDA approved contractors. It is Director of Accounts and Finance who is the custodian of the 'Price Bulletin' which is a restricted documents and is not supplied to the Divisional Offices for comparison of rates. These are instances where the Director had reduced the prices accepted by the purchasing authority which is a clear indication of the fact that the Director Accounts A.E.B. is solely responsible for checking the rates with the prevailing market rates.

15. It was contended that the requirements of material and T & P is assessed by the Purchasing Agency in consultation with the Sub‑Divisional Officer and Assistant Store Officer either for immediate incorporation or for stock purchases in emergency and the Divisional Accountant has no authority to interfere in the requirements of the field officers. He has to see that all the codal requirements are met and that he is not allowed to go beyond the purchase order to assess whether a particular item is needed or not.

16. All the purchases were made on the demand of the field officers after obtaining non‑availability certificate from the Regional Store controlled by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board and hence no violation has been committed. In view of the foregoing this charge is misconceived and thus unsustainable.

17. In the case of splitting of bills of purchase orders, it was submitted that according to the general conditions as laid down in para. 5 (I V) of the preface to the Book of Financial Powers 1977, it is required that "an individual item should not be split‑up into parts merely to enable the part of the whole item to qualify for a particular sanction". Therefore, as per existing rules splitting of item is not permissible with a view to avoiding sanction of higher authority. Thus, rule has not been violated on any occasion while making purchase of particular item, and that the purchase orders were never split. The respondents have not specified in the reply the items allegedly split.

18. The practice of issuing different purchase orders to different firms by purchasing agency for making local purchases was not restricted to the years 1980‑81 and 1981‑82 (period of enquiry) but was being observed at different times according to the 'Book of Financial Powers' which remained in force from time to time, but this practice based on the said rules has never been objected to by any authority including the Audit people. Article 254 of the Audit Code lays down that when erroneous payments have been admitted in Audit for a considerably long time owing either due 'to a wrong interpretation of Financial rules or due to oversight, the new interpretation should in the absence of special instructions to the contrary, take effect from the date of issue by the competent authority to the orders stating the correct interpretation. No interpretation has so far been made by the authority and hence, this charge is not sustainable.

19. In view of the above, the charge against the appellant is devoid of any merit.

20. With regard to the Financial Powers of the XEN, originally the Executive Engineers had the power of purchase upto the value of Rs.10,000. This value was reduced to Rs.7,000 but was not brought to the notice of the Divisional Offices for a considerably long time. In 1981, the Director Accounts, A.E.B. Lahore noticed this during the pre‑audit of the bills and issued a Circular letter No.3342‑43/DA/AEB/ IA&A, dated 4‑4‑1981 that the financial powers of the Executive Engineer have been reduced to Rs.7,000 and, therefore, no purchase order beyond Rs.7,000 should in future be issued. No violation of these instructions were made after the receipt of above circular.

21. With regard to administrative approval, the various checks to be exercised on the suppliers' bills by the Accounts Wing have been laid down as per Chief Accountant (Power) Memo. No.CA/365/70/CAP/ COOD, dated 7‑5‑1970. It will be seen from those checks that checking of the suppliers bills from the view point of Administrative Approval and Technical sanction does not fall under the purview of Accounts Checking.

22. The T&P articles to be used by the line staff were purchased in accordance with the directions of the higher authorities issued from time to time to the XENs/SEs., vide Memo. No.8457‑EP‑209, dated 17‑8‑1981 of Chairman, A.E.B. Lahore.

23. We have gone through the case very carefully.

In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that although there may be some sort of negligence on the part of the appellant, E which has not been successfully explained before us, it was not a fit case for taking the drastic action under section 17(1‑A) against an officer who has a brilliant record and all officers under whom he served, had held high opinion of him.

24. In view of the above facts, therefore, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of removal passed under section 17(1‑A )and reinstate the appellant into service with consequential benefits.

Parties to be informed.

M.Y.H./360/Lb/S

Find a Lawyer Near You

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