SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- The respondent was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 for shortage of stocks and T&P articles valuing Rs. 1,13,626/-. The Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 28.7.1986, found the respondent responsible for the shortage of T & P articles valuing Rs. 75,593/-. The authorized officer concurred with the finding and submitted the case to the "Authority". There has been exchange of correspondence between the "Authority" and "Authorized Officer" (details of which are not necessary to be given here) and ultimately vide order dated 11.5.1993 the "Authority" directed recovery of the aforesaid loss from the respondent at the rate of l/3rd of his pay. His departmental appeal having been dismissed, he approached the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. The defence of the respondent has been that he had handed over the aforesaid articles to the concerned officials of the department against duly executed receipts. These were subjected to comparison by the hand writing experts twice. One report was favourable to the respondent while other one was against him. Ln this background, while allowing appeal the learned Tribunal observed as follows:-- "I would have liked to remand the case to the Authority to make a further probe to resolve the controversy as to whether the receipts of Abdul Sattar, Sub-Engineer and Khan Muhammad, Chowkidar produced by the appellant were genuine. But the appellant has been facing this enquiry for more than one and a half decade and it would not be fair and just to prolong his agony of facing the enquiry any longer."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason adduced by the Tribunal to interfere in the matter is not valid because the crucial question whether the respondent had handed over the aforesaid items to the concerned officials of the department remains unresolved.
4. The respondent has appeared in person, has defended the impugned judgment and has also raised objection that this appeal is barred by time.
5. The submissions have been considered. The departmental authorities found that the respondent was responsible for the loss and to set aside the orders of the departmental authorities there should have been a clear finding to the contrary of the Tribunal. The reason that the respondent has to face the agony of the inquiry, to our mind cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the only question required to be resolved was the genuineness of the receipts relied upon by the respondent, which could be determined by the learned Service Tribunal itself by examining the experts who had submitted the reports and even could examine further evidence considered necessary to resolve the controversy. Such course is permissible under Section 5 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and Rule 11 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975.
6. We have considered the objection of the respondent as to the bar of limitation being pressed by him. The appeal was heard by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal on 30.3.2001 but the judgment was pronounced on 14.5.2001. Learned counsel has explained that as required by Rule 21 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975 copy of the judgment was sent to the department on 21.5.2001, therefore, this appeal which was filed on 19.7.2001 is within time.
7. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14.5.2001 of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is set aside with the result that the appeal of the respondent before the learned Tribunal shall beseemed to be pending. The learned Tribunal shall itself determine the controversy as observed in para 5 of this order and the appeal shall be decided preferably within a period of three months by a bench or a member other than the learned Member who has already expressed his opinion. No order as to costs.