M. SALEEM CRAUDHARY (CHURMAN).-In this case the appellant who at the relevant side was a Block Officer in Block II of Changa Manga Forest Planta--tion, is aggrieved of the order dated 19th April 1974 of DFO Lahore Forest Division whereby after proceeding under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, a penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,362-10-0 and stoppage of two annual increments with future effect was imposed upon him. He also impugns before us the appel--late order of the Conservator of Forests dated 18-1-1975 rejecting his appeal.
2. The facts as stated before us are that on receipt of complaint alleging some damage in Block II of Changa Manga Plantation, Mr. Muhammad. Sharif, Forest Ranger was deputed to inspect the site and prepare damage list. He after visiting the spot on 17-3-73, prepared a damage list of 14 shisham logs with a volume of 146.58 of . Which was said to have been illicitly cut to cover up the shortage detected in the block. In addition to this the Range Officer, Tramway Unit Range also reported that 16 shisham logs measuring 642 of . Freshly cut from Compartments No. 30 and 31 had been carried to the sales depot illicitly. The major charge, however, was based upon the report of the Range Officer, Changa Manga alleging shortage of 24,437 of . Of firewood in Compartments 30, 31, 33 and 34 of Block 11. A further shortage of 57 of . Of 9 shisham logs was also alleged as Sultan Mahmood, Forest Guard did not, on transfer hand over this quantity of wood to his successor. After having a preliminary carried out through Amir Nawaz Niazi, Forest Ranger, Incharge Kasur Range (who submitted his report on 20-6-1973 holding the appellant responsible for the shortage of 24,437 of . Of firewood and Sultan Mahmood Forest Guard for the shortage of 9 shisham logs measuring 57 of . The appellant was served with a charge-sheet embodying the aforesaid allegations and charging him with inefficiency and corruption. Enquiry was initially entrusted to Ghulam Hussain, Officer Changa Manga but later, on the objection of Sultan Mahmood Forest Guard the enquiry was entrusted to and finalised by Muhammad Salim, Range Officer Pattoki who vide his enquiry report dated 14-11-73 held the appellant and the Forest Guard guilty of inefficiency only resulting in a loss of 23,261 of . Of firewood costing Rs. 3,490 and 9 shisham logs measuring 57 of . Costing Rs. 485, total loss thus being Rs. 3,975. The DFO agreeing with the Inquiry Officer served a show-cause notice upon the appellant provisionally determining the punishment of removal from service and recovery of 50 % of the loss alleged to have been caused to the depart--ment which amounted to Rs. 1,987.50, out of total loss of Rs. 3,975. After considering the written reply of the appellant and hearing him in person on 9-3-1974 the DFO after taking into account the relevant record came to the conclusion that out of 8,600 of . Firewood reported as received in excess by Range Officer Tramway Unit from Compartments Nos. 4 to 36 in his record of March 1973, 869 of .
Could be off set against the shortage shown in Compartment No. 34, and he accordingly further reduced the quantity of shortage against the appellant from 23,261 of . To 22,393 of . Reducing correspondingly the monetary loss suffered by the Govt. To Rs. 3,358.80. Accepting the contention of the appellant he also further deducted the carriage, loading unloading and retaking charges amounting to Rs. 1,119.60 in calculating the cost of the aforesaid quantity of firewood. Thus the total loss sustained by the department due to the shortage of firewood and 9 shisham logs measuring 57 of . Was assessed as Rs. 2,724.20. The DFO thus imposed a penalty of recovery of 50 % of the loss, i.e. Rs. 1,362.10 on the appellant and in addition ordered stoppage of two annual increments with future effect.
3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the procedure adopted in the Forest for the disposal of firewood which is lying in measured stacks in the respective compartments and entered in the relevant registers of the Forest Guard Incharge is that it is lifted and carried by the Tramway Unit to the sales depot of the department without giving any receipt to the Forest Guard incharge. According to the prevalent procedure the firewood is restacked and measured at the sales depot by the staff of the Tramway Unit. The fuel wood thus carried from various compartments, according to the appellant gets pooled up at the sales depot and is measured after a lapse of considerable period of time by the staff of the Tramway Unit without associating the staff from whose charge this wood was taken over. In the instant case it is submitted that the firewood from Block II (of which appellant was incharge) and Block I was simultaneously carried to the sales depot which process continued upto Dec. 1973. It is accepted position that the Range Officer Tramway Unit had reported an excess receipt of firewood from Block I. According to the appellant this excess up to December 1973 was 14,949 of . It is vehemently argued that since the firewood of Blocks I and II was first pooled up at the sales depot and then measured, the excess receipt of wood recorded by the Tramway Unit was erroneously shown as such resulting in showing a corresponding shortage against Block II. Similarly it is submitted that the record of Tramway Unit shows carriage of 6,600 of . Of firewood from Compartment No. 62 of Block III to the Sales Depot in November 1973 through permanent Tramway Line although there was no permanent Tramway Line for this compartment but rather a temporary line was laid before November 1973. The appellant thus contends that this quantity of firewood has wrongly been shown as carried from the aforesaid source which was actually received from Block II. The appellant submits that 14,949 of . Plus 6,600 of . 21,559 of . Should in actual fact be set off against the shortage of 24,437 of . Wrongly shown in Block II. By this computation according to the appellant almost the entire shortage attributed to Block No. II stands wiped out. With regard to shortage of shisham logs measuring 57 of . It is submitted that the said wood was in the personal custody of the Forest Guard which is certified as such on Form 7 of Block II for February 1973, so that no responsibility could be placed upon the appellant for the shortage of said quantity of wood and the Forest Guard was squarely responsible for the same. With these submissions he contends that the appeal may be accepted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, controverts the arguments raised on behalf of appellant. It is stated that that on receipt of complaint as stated earlier, stocks lying in Compartments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 34, Block II were physically checked on 15-3-73 by the Raid Party. The said party found in Compartments 30 and 31 no firewood was present, i.e. The entire quantity had been carried to the sales depot by that date. In compartments 33, 34, 23703 of ., 52,583 of .
Respectively of fuelwood was found lying. Last balance of fuelwood present in the aforesaid compartments according to Form F. 7 of March 1973 prepared by Block Incharge himself were 86,821 of . Of firewood in Compartments 30 and 31 and 24,275 and 53,452 of . Firewood in Compartments 33 and 34 respectively. The quantity of wood carried by the Tramway Unit was ascertained immediately from the Range Officer of that Unit, according to which only 63,825 of .
Was carried till that date from Com--partments Nos. 30 and 31 and no quantity was carried from Compartments 33 and 34. By simple computation the quantity off shortage in Compartments Nos.
30 and 31 comes to 22,996 of . (i.e. 86,821-63,875 of .). In Compart--ments Nos. 33 and 34 the shortage which was the difference between the opening balance of that month as shown by the appellant and quantities in actually measured on 15-3-1973 by the raid party (as no wood was lifted by the Tramway Unit from these compartments) worked out to 572 and 869 of . Respectively.
These figures were reported by the raid Party in their letter No. 1382/C, dated 21-3-1973, i.e., after just six days of the raid. It is thus strongly urged that the position was determined immediately after the raid in March 1973 and any transaction of the wood thereafter upto December 1973 is irrelevant to the issue under consideration. The arguments of the appellant that excess of 1,449 of . Reported by the Tramway Unit in December 1973 against Block I should be off set against shortage found against Block 11 in March 1973 is rebutted. Further contention of the appellant with respect to the carriage of 600 of . From Compartment No. 62 of Block III in November 1973 is rebutted on identical grounds. Similarly it is argued that the appellant being incharge of the Block could not be absolved of the responsibility for the loss of shisham logs measuring 57 of . And he was guilty of negligence in this behalf. With these submissions it is urged that the present appeal may be rejected as having no merit.
5. We have heard the parties at length. We observe that the contentions of the appellant raised before us have been considered at various stages of the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The enquiry officer accepting the contention of the appellant of loss due to pilferage gave credit of 1,176 of . Of firewood which was covered by the damage reports issued by the appellant himself.
6. The competent authority while passing the impugned order has also considered the main contentions of the appellant, i.e. The mixing up physically of the fuelwood carried simultaneously from Blocks I and 11 to the sale depot and the shortage against Block II being wrongly shown as excess received from Block I and has rebutted the same on the ground that the position having been once determined after a physical check on 15-3-1973, the shortages or excesses shown in December 1973, could not be adjusted against the same. In our opinion there was admittedly a procedural lapse in the process of take over of firewood from each source for carriage to the sales depot inasmuch as no transaction of receipts was resorted to while lifting the fuelwood under the charge of a particular official. The fuelwood was lifted and carried to the sales depot by an agency other than the Incharge of the firewood i.e., by the Tramway Unit and it is conceded that the quantities lifted from each compartment/block were assessed after carriage to and restacking at the sales depot by the staff of the Tramway Unit without associating the staff of the Block or compartment from whose custody the wood was taken over. As described before us, the procedure is deficient in that it does not provide for fixing of responsibility of any difference detected in the quantities of the firewood on the record of the official incharge at the despatching end and that measured at the receiving end, particularly when the firewood carried from diverse sources was stacked in one and the same yard. Some confusion is also in evidence from the fact that whereas in the letter dated 21-3-1973 the Incharge of the Raid party indicated in his report of 21-3-1973 that no firewood had been lifted by the Tramway Unit from Compartments Nos. 33 and 34, the order of the competent Authority indicates that the Tramway Unit in March 1973 had shown an excess receipt of 8,600 of . From compartments Nos. 34, 35 and 36, and the relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under "The Range Officer, Tramway Unit Range has, however, shown the excess receipt of 8,600 of .
Firewood from Compartments Nos. 34 to 36 in his Form for the month of 3/73 and as such the shortage of 869 of . Firewood from of . No. 34 is set off against the receipt of 8,600 of . Of Compartments Nos. 34 to 36."
7. In consequence of the above finding the D.F.O. Has wiped out the originally reported shortage of 869 of . Against Compartment No. 34. In view of the aforementioned procedural lapse, we are of the opinion that full credit of 8,600 of . Of excess receipt shown in March 1973 by the Tramway Unit from Block II in Compartments Nos. 34 to 36 should in fairness be afforded to the appellant by adjusting it against the total shortage. The enquiry officer has worked out a shortage of 23,261 of .
Against the appellant by giving credit for the quantities covered by damage reports issued by the appellant by giving a further credit of 8,600 of . As narrated above, the shortage against the appellant in our view comes to 23,261 (---) 8,600=14,661 of . We agree with the departmental view that the excess or shortage discovered after 15-3-1973 is not relevant to the issue under consideration and we repel the contention of the appellant in that behalf.
8. Regarding loss of 9 shisham logs measuring 57 of - we find the connivance of the appellant in the loss which is attributed to the Forest Guard has not been proved but the appellant has been charged under his overall responsibility as a Block Officer. In our view in the absence of an incriminating evidence the charge against the appellant is considerably diluted. Since the appellant is also being penalised with the loss of two annual increments with future effect, we are of the view that 'a recovery also to the tune of 50 % of loss of the aforesaid timber will be harsh and we set aside the impugned order to that extent.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal fails but we modify the order to the extent that no recovery for loss of 57 of . Of shisham logs will be made and recovery for fuelwood at the rate mentioned in the impugned order of the D.F.O. Will be made only for a quantity of 14,661 of .
And reduction for carriage, loading, unloading, and re stacking charges for the aforementioned quantity of firewood at the rates mentioned in item 3 of the D.F.O.'s order will also be made. The order of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.