' NUR AHMAD SHAH (MEMBER-II).---This is an appeal under section 4 of Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The facts are: The appellant at the relevant time, was, District Agriculture Supply Officer
(DASO) Thatta, in the Sindh Agricultural Supply Organization (SASO). In September, 1997, the Sales Inspector from the office of Director Inspection SASO, Hyderabad visited the Bulk Depot Thatta and on checking, found its stocks short/damaged to the tune of Rs.3,286, 222. The appellant asked the Depot Incharge Sikandar Ali Magsi to make good the loss and the latter paid Rs.1,742, 450 towards the loss. On the latter's failure to pay the remainder, the appellant transferred Sikandar Ali Magsi, The matter was also reported to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Thatta. Meanwhile in the physical verification of the stocks carried out in 1998 more shortages came to the surface and the losses finally amounted to Rs.9,117,825. Consequently, the appellant was placed under suspension on 8-8-1998. He was charge-sheeted for inefficiency, corruption, misconduct, and unlawful practices on 30-12-1998. He was served with a show-cause notice and was dismissed from service on 20-5-1999. The appellant challenged his dismissal before the Department and waited for the decision for the statutory period of 90 days but in vain. Hence this appeal.
2. Heard Mr. Chulam Sarwar Chandio, Counsel for appellant and Mr. Muhammad Qasim Mirjat, A.A.G. And Mr. Moula Bux Yhoso, Advocate for respondents.
3. The Counsel for appellant contends that the Depot Incharge, Sikandar Ali Magsi, and not the appellant, was responsible for the shortages; that in token thereof Magsi deposited Rs.1,742,450 towards these shortages; that no inquiry was held nor any enquiry report was furnished to the appellant and that he was not given personal hearing. He relies on 2000 SCMR 1321, 1987 SCMR 1562, 1996 PLC (C.S.) 868; 1997 PLC (C.S.) 817; PLD 1981 S.C. 176 and 2000 PLC (C.S.) 857.
4. The A.A.G. And the other counsel for respondents stated that the appellant, as the head of the District Office cannot deny his responsibility for shortages or damages in the stocks entrusted to him.
5.We have perused the record. The total losses due to shortages or damages in the stocks amount to Rs.9,117,825. The Bulk Depot, Thatta was being managed under a double lock key system and one of the keys lay with the DASO who in the instant case, was the appellant. He was, thus, made jointly liable for the safe custody of the stocks kept in the godowns with the Depot Incharge. Even otherwise, as a supervisory officer, it was his duty to keep a constant watch on the stocks. He should have made surprise or pre-arranged visits to the godowns to get the stocks periodically checked and verified to prevent any shortage/damage. Since he failed to do so, he is liable to be arraigned for inefficiency and lack of vigilance, and in fact, for passive, if not active connivance. He cannot get away by merely shifting the responsibility to the Sales Inspector in charge of the godowns. However, the Depot Incharge who compensated the shortages to the tune of Rs.1,742, 450 was proceeded against and was dismissed from service. The appellant's plea that he is completely free from blame for the shortage or damage in the stocks under his supervision is anything but tenable.
6. The appellant does not deny the shortages and the loss caused to Government as a result thereof. Nor does he deny that these shortage occurred during his stewardship. In his reply to the charge-sheet he did admit that there were shortages worth Rs.3,286,292. He, however, denied his culpability and asserted the Depot Incharge alone was liable for the losses, and recounted his efforts for recovery. He directed the Incharge Sale Depot to make good the loss and the latter paid Rs.1,742, 450. The appellant has produced the copies of his letters addressed to the Inspector reminding him about the payment of the remaining amount. He followed it up by transferring the Sales Inspector and referring the matter to the ACE. .
7. The SASO office circular dated 4-1-1997 made it clear that "in case of double lock key system wherever applicable the persons (officers/officials) holding the charge/key are equally responsible." The merit of the double lock key system lies in the co-key keepers' acting as watchdogs. This rules out the possibility of pilferage without each other's connivance or collaboration. Besides being a supervisory officer, the appellant was a co-key holder in the double lock key system. Mere pressing the Sales Inspector to make good the loss or initiating criminal proceedings against him will not absolve him of the responsibility of shortage or pilferage of stocks.
8. The charge-sheet accused the appellant of having replaced the erring Sales Inspector besides referring the matter to the ACE without the knowledge of his head office. The competent authority in this behalf should be the head office and not the appellant. His reply to the charge-sheet as well as his memo. Of appeal offers no comments on his acting in excess of his powers. The allegation of arbitrary behaviour against him, thus, remains unrebutted. This amounts to misconduct.
9. The thrust of the appellant's submissions is that no inquiry was held nor any witnesses examined or confronted with him for cross-examination. His Counsel has cited several case-laws in which the superior Courts have struck down the imposition of major penalty in the absence of a regular inquiry. But in these case-laws, the charges were based on "disputed questions of fact." And these could be resolved only by way of holding a detailed inquiry by affording the accused the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and producing the witnesses in his defence. The apex Court held in Nawab Khan and others v/s Government of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 222) that "if the charge is founded on admitted documents/facts, no full-fledged inquiry is required."
10. In the instant case, the appellant admits the shortages committed by the Sale Inspector with whom he shared the responsibility of the safe custody of stocks. The godowns in which these stocks were kept, as mentioned earlier, were managed under the double lock key system. The appellant had with him one of the keys and the other remained with the Sales Inspector who was in-charge of the godowns. Thus both the appellant and the Sale Inspector to whom he wants to shift the responsibility were jointly and severally responsible for the safe storage of the stocks.
11. The appellant's role in shortages and other wrong doings being so evident, the inquiry, even if it had been held, could have made no difference. It would have been, on the contrary, an exercise in futility. F The authorised officer rightly exercised his discretion of dispensing with inquiry and, instead, issuing him a show-cause notice. He could do so under sub-rule (3) of 5 E&D Rules, 1973.
12. The appellant submitted' the reply which did not convince the authority and he served him with a final show-cause notice. It is important to mention that in both the notices, the appellant was afforded the opportunity for personal hearing. He was summoned for personal hearing before the Authority on 30-4-1999 but he did not appear and requested for an adjournment. He was called on 10-5-1999 but again he failed to appear and requested for another date. He finally appeared on 17- 5-1999. The impugned order was passed after hearing him. He was, thus, given full opportunity to explain his view point before the imposition of penalty on him. This is not the case of punishing him ex parte. The impugned order meets the requirements of justice and law and there is no reason to find fault with it.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to the costs.