' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Sh. Muhammad Ismail retired Sub-Engineer has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Link Circle, Lahore, and Chief Engineer Irrigation, Lahore as, respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 29th April, 1980 and Appellate Order dated 20th September, 1980 passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore, be set aside as being without any force.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- Sh. Muhammad Ismail the appellant, while working as Sub-Engineer, Kamoke Section of Reelina Outfall Drainage Sub-Division, Sheikhupura was transferred to Daska Drainage Sub-Division. Sialkot vide order dated 6th January, 1970 and Ch. Barkat Ali, Sub-Engineer, was posted in his place. There arose a controversy about the handing/ taking over of the said charge between these two Officers which led to a lot of correspondence between the appellant and his Senior Officers. Ultimately it was found from the report of his successor i,e, Ch. Barkat Ali that the appellant has failed to account for lot of material which was in his charge and the same was to be handed over by him at the time of his relinquishing the said charge. The appellant was charge-sheeted by S.E. Link Circle, Lahore on two grounds that he refused to handover the charge to Ch. Barkat Ali and that he was responsible for the shortage. Enquiry Officer was appointed to look into the prosecution as well as the defence led by both the Sub-Engineers and after making detailed enquiry into the same he came to the following conclusions :-
(1) Sh. Muhammad Ismail, Sub-Engineer (Rtd.) constantly and vigorously pursued the matter for handing the material in the condition in which it was available with him.
(2) Ch. Barkat Ali, Sub-Engineer deliberately and knowingly delayed the matter and was avoiding to have the material in the condition available with the relieved Sub-Engineer and he wanted to get the materials in perfect good condition.
(3) Cement was received by Sh. Muhammad Ismail, Sub-Engineer on 19th June, 1967 to 30th June, 1967 and so on, as per his stock register. The works were stopped and the cement issued to works was received back in May, 1969 i,e, after the lapse of two years. Thus naturally the condition of cement cannot be fresh which remained in the field for the period of two years. It was incumbent upon Ch. Barkat Ali, Sub-Engineer to receive the cement from Sh. Muhammad Ismail, Sub-Engineer in the condition available with him and report against the relieved Sub-Engineer.
(4) As per stock register; E. C. Bags have been shown as short as 507 whereas in the report of S.D.O.
It was shown as 547. Moreover these bags were also received back from the field, apparently these could not be new one and Ch. Barkat Ali, Sub-Engineer should have received these in the condition available with the relieved Sub-Engineer.
(5) While declaring finally the shortages against Sh. Muhammad Ismail, the Executive Engineer, Rechna Drainage vide high Letter No, 13854,-E dated 27th April, 1970 has already left the items of bricks bat 90 and 2000 bricks new as already discussed above and I therefore consider these not as shortage.
' Now after going through the whole case, I recommend that :-
(1) 175 E. C. Bags available as serviceable should be taken on stock and for the remaining (332 bags) thereof should be recovered from Ch. Barkat Ali Sub-Engineer, who failed to take over the same at proper time.
(2) Pacca bricks 9" (used) 3600, the cost thereof should be recovered from Sh. Muhammad Ismail, (Rtd.) Sub-Engineer as he failed to hand over the same and there was no dispute regarding the 4..Ondition of bricks.
(3) Shingle 72 eft, the cost thereof should be recovered from Ch. Barkat All Sub-Engineer who failed to take over the same in the condition available.
(4) One No, D.W. Sleeper size 12 x 10 x 9 serviceable should be taken on stock and cost of remaining 4 D.W. Sleepers should be recovered from Sh. Muhammad Ismail and Barkat Ali equally.
(5) Cost of 154 ewt cement should be recovered equally from both Sub-Engineers, namely Sh.
Muhammad Ismail and Barkat Ali.
(6) Sh. Muhammad Ismail, Sub-Engineer is responsible for shortage of 20000 bricks and should make good.
' The S.E.Accepted the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and held liable both the appellant as well as Ch. Barkat All for shortage which had occurred in their charge and directed that the appellant should pay Rs, 3,148 and Ch. Barkat Ali Rs, 1,640 in lump sum plus the 'Censure' recorded against them. The appeal filed before the Chief Engineer was also dismissed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the Representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The mainstay of the appellant is that while he has been exonerated of the first charge i,e, his tactics to delay the same, there war no justification for the Enquiry Officer to penalize him for the shortage which according to him never took place. On the other hand the learned D.A. While controverting this argument has submitted that the appellant should not be allowed to take advantage of the fair attitude of the Enquiry Officer who gave an honest opinion dispassionately relying on the facts of the case before him. According to the learned District Attorney the Enquiry Officer analysed the whole situation as it transpired before him after looking minutely into the details of this case and rightly considered the appellant responsible to account for 20,000 bricks a commodity which would always remain a new despite the vagaries of weather.
4. We have given or anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and after going through the report of the Enquiry Officer which is fully based on the record of this case we feel that no exception can be taken to his findings. True he has absolved the appellant of the charge of deliberately refusing the handing over of materials lying on the site to his successor but the probe into the matter clearly revealed that pacca bricks 9' (used) 3600 were the responsibility of Sh. Muhammad Ismail who failed to hand over the same to the successor Sub-Engineer as there was no question of deterioration of this material in any manner whatsoever. Similarly he held Sh. Muhammad Ismail as well as Barkat Ali responsible for the loss of 4 D.W. Sleepers which were an expensive material.
He also divided the responsibility equally i,e, 154 cwt. Cement between these two. Ultimately he could not absolve Sh. Muhammad Ismail appellant of the loss of 20000 bricks as these had to be delivered to his A successor in the condition in which these were found at that time. Whati we find is that these 20000 bricks vanished from the spot and were the responsibility of the appellant being under his charge.
' In the light of the enquiry report and or above discussions of tf,, same we do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismis4-r1 accordingly.