' JUSTICE (RTD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the original order dated 10-6-1999 passed by the Deputy Director, Agriculture Supplies, Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization, Sukkur Division, awarding major penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of losses amounting to Rs.449,365 to the appellant and appellate order passed by the Managing Director, SASO, communicated to the appellant through letter dated 11-10-1999, rejecting his departmental appeal.
2. Facts briefly stated are that appellant the Sub-Sale Inspector of Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (hereinafter referred to as `SASO') was proceeded with departmentally. He was served with show-cause notice dated 28-1-1999 issued by the District Agricultural Supplies Officer, SASO, Ntushahro Feroze, containing following charges:
(i) During handing/taking over the charge of Sub-Bulk Depot, New Jatoi, Mr. Ali Akbar Channa, Sub- Sale Inspector (under suspension) handed over the following stocks short to his successor. Mr. Atta Muhammad Buriro, Junior Clerk. {{TABLE}} S.No Variety Quantity Rate Amount SOP 65 Bags Rs.550 Rs.35,750.00 DAP Fresh 514 Bags Rs.695 Rs.3,57,230.00 DAP old damaged 23 Bags. Rs.695 Rs.15,985.00 Total: Rs.4,08,965.00 {{TABLE}}
(ii) During handing/taking over the charge of District Naushahro Feroze in between Mr. Kasim Ali Shaikh and Mr. Hubdar Ali Abbassi and Mr. Ahmed Khan Solangi on dated 19-11-1997 and 21-5-1998 Ali Akbar Channa shown the following stocks of Pesticde old issued on credit but the amount of Pesticides has not yet been deposited in SASO, sale collection Account. {{TABLE}} S.No Pesticide Quantity Rate Amount Cypermathein 30 bottles Rs.5G9 Rs.17,070.00 Fenvlerate 30 bottles Rs.589 Rs.17,520.00 Methamedophas 20 bottles Rs.290.50 Rs.5,810.00 {{TABLE}} Total: Rs.40,400.00
(iii) Thus mis-appropriation/defalcation of Government stocks of Rs.4,49,365.00 is committed by Mr. Ali Akbar Channa.
' In his reply appellant denied the allegations and explained his position. His reply was not found satisfactory and he was served with final show-cause notice dated 11-2-1999 which too the appellant replied and reiterated the stand earlier taken by him. However, vide order dated 18-6- 1999 he was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs.449,365 by the Deputy Director, SASO Sukkur Division/Authority. He preferred departmental appeal, but it was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
3. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that District Agricultural Supply Officer being an Officer of B-16 was not competent to act as 'Authorized Officer' against the appellant who was serving in B-7; besides, the alleged defalcated amount exceeds Rupees one lac, therefore, the inquiry was to be conducted by the Agricultural Department. He further submitted that charge of misappropriation was serious on which the appellant denied vehemently, as suchNregular inquiry was necessary but instead a short-cut procedure was adopted, which is not warranted by law and that no chance of personal hearing was given to the appellant to defend himself and explained his position, thus the principle of natural justice violated. He also contended that in the final show-cause notice 'Minor penalty' was proposed while appellant was awarded 'major penalty' which under the law is not sustainable. On merits of the case, learned counsel argued that as per policy circular dated 4-1-1977, there was double key system, one set of keys remained with Incharge Bulk Depot and the other with District Officers of SASO, therefore, both being custodians were responsible of stocks lying in the Bulk Depot, but only appellant was proceeded. He also stated that Chowkidar Muhammad Ayoob Keerio in his affidavit/Iqrarnama admitted that he at his own accord without the knowledge of appellant disposed of 600 bags of DAP to the Growers on credit out of which amount of 100 bags comes to Rs.59,050 has already been deposited in SASO account on 12-6-1999 and that despite report made against said Ayoob Keerio, no action was taken against him, but appellant was made escape goat. So far shortage of 65 DAP bags and 80 bottles of pesticides it has been submitted by learned counsel that the DAP bags were given in the charge of appellant in a torn and damaged condition, while 80 bottles of pesticides were initially sold on credit but returned unsold and deposited in the office, as per report, therefore, there was no shortage, as such, question of misappropriation or defalcation does not arise.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for SASO argued that District Officer was fully competent to act as Authorized Officer and the departmental disciplinary proceedings were legally conducted against the appellant. So for double key system is concerned, he contended that it was being adopted at Bulk Depots and not at Sub-Bulk Depots and since the appellant was posted at Sub- Bulk Depot he singly holding the key. On the point of regular inquiry, it has been contended that in view of appellant's own admission, there was no necessity of conducting any inquiry. He relied upon:1) 2002 SCM R 684, 2) 2003 SCM R 41 and 3) 2003 SCM R 367. He contended that due to typographical error in the final show-cause notice, 'Minor penalty' was proposed against appellant but subsequently the mistake was rectified and para-2 of the show-cause notice was amended through letter dated 11-3-1999 addressed to appellant that "the authorized officer proposed to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service beside the recovery of pecuniary losses amounting to Rs.4,49,365.00 as criminal proceedings as per rules". The said letter was received by appellant much prior to reply to the final show-cause notice thus no prejudice caused to him. He added that appellant put the SASO authorities in heavy pecuniary losses deserves for no leniency.
5. We have considered the above submissions, minutely perused, the case papers and have carefully gone through the case-law referred to by the learned counsel for SASO. The first contention that appellant was serving in B-7', therefore, the DASO was not competent to act as `Authorized Officer' has no substance. In the E&D Rules, as applicable to the SASO officials read with Notification dated 7th April, 1991 A published in the Sindh Government Gazette, DASO is the 'Authorized Officer' and Deputy Director is the 'Authority' for the officials of BS-15 and below. The appellant being in BS-7, DASO has rightly acted as `Authorized Officer' and Deputy Director as an 'Authority'. So for second contention that as per circular dated 4-1-1977 there was double key system, therefore, DASO, Naushahro Feroze was equally responsible but only appellant was proceeded and penalized, suffice it to say that as contended by respondent/SASO the double key system was being adopted only at Bulk Depots and not at Sub-Bulk Depots and the appellant was posted at Sub-Bulk Depot where he was lonely holding the key. The Circular dated 4-1-1977 referred to by appellant's counsel also does not say that at every Bulk Deport and Sub-Bulk Depot, there was a double key system. In the Circular it has been mentioned that: however, in case of double key system wherever applicable, the persons (officers officials) holding the charge/keys are equally responsible. Appellant has not produced any order whereby at Sub-Bulk Depot, New Jatoi (where he was posted), the double key system was in vogue. A's regards contention that in the final show-cause notice dated 11-2-1999, 'Minor penalty' was proposed against appellant while he was awarded 'Major penalty', it is pertinent to mention here that it was in fact a typographical error which mistake/error was subsequently rectified though letter dated 11-3-1999, whereby major penalty was proposed to be imposed upon appellant. Admittedly, said letter was received by appellant much prior to the reply to the final show cause, therefore, no prejudice was caused to him, as argued by learned counsel for SASO.
6. On merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in fact Chowkidar Muhammad Ayoob Keerio had disposed off 600 bags of DAP to the Growers on credit at his own accord and without the knowledge of appellant and that this fact has been admitted by Chowkdidar in his affidavit/Iqramama and that an amount of Rs.59,050 the sale proceeds of 100 bags of DAP has already been deposited in SASO account on 12-6-1998. However, perusal of affidavit/Iqrarnama upon which much stress has been placed by appellant's learned counsel, speaks otherwise. In the Iqrarnama/affidavit said Muhammad Ibrahim Keerio categorically stated that 600 bags of DAP were given to him by appellant Ali Akbar Channa which he collected after counting personally from Jaffar Malah Godown. The question whether appellant being the custodian of Government stock was competent to hand over such a huge stock to his subordinate/Chowkidar to sale on credit? The answer is big `NAY'. In view of such overwhelming evidence in the shape of Iqramama/affidavit of Muhammad Ayoob Keerio, Chowkidar, the contents of which have not been denied by the appellant, rather he admitted and placed much reliance on the same, appellant is guilty of the charge of defalcation of SASO stock being the custodian and Incharge of Sub-Bulk Depot.. In the circumstances, there was no necessity of holding any further inquiry which was rightly dispensed with. As regards 65 DAP, SOP bags and 80 bottles of pesticides, there is much force in the contention of appellant's learned counsel that as per record 65 SOP bags, 23 DAR bags were given to him in a very torn and damaged condition, while 80 bottles of pesticides which were sold on credit returned back unsold. Therefore, the amount of said bags and pesticides cannot be recovered from appellant. Besides, the amount of 100 bags of DAP has already been deposited in SASO Account much prior to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against appellant.
7. For what has been stated above, the penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the appellant calls for no interference and is hereby maintained. So far recovery of losses is concerned, the same is reduced to Rs.2,98,260 (Rupees Two lacs ninety eight thousand two hundred sixty only). However, the order of forfeiture of G.P. Fund and other deposits of appellant, in addition to above, is set aside except the amount of Rs.2,98,260. With the above modification in the impugned order, the appeal stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. Announced in open Court.