1. ' WALAYAT AHMAD KHAN (MEMBER).-This i3 an appeal against the order dated 21st June 1979 issued by the Chief Engineer, Highway Department, Hyderabad ordering the recovery of shortages of stores worth about Rs, 9,714 from the appellant.
2. ' The appellant was employed as a Senior Grade Clerk by the then Chief Engineer, Government of Sind of the Provincial P. W. D. Since 11th November, 1954. He was suspended by the then Executive Engineer, Thatta Roads Division, Thatta vide his order dated 25th June 1959 as per instructions of the then Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle P. W. D. The allegations against the appellant were that there were shortages of stores material worth Rs, 9,714. These shortages were reported by the then Executive Engineer, Thatta Roads Division, Thatta in a confidential letter to the then Superintending Engineer, Roads Division. But later, on the explanations of the appellant many items and their amount worth Rs, 7,593-12-6 Ps. Was adjusted in accounts and about 12 items were still outstanding against him, which were mentioned in the second report submitted by his superior Officers on 8th January 1960, ' These items were worth about Rs, 2,121-1,6. These shortages were accepted by the appellant on 30th January, 1959 and he agreed that recovery of this amount may be made from him in monthly instalments.
3. ' Because of these shortages, the appellant was charge-sheeted on 25th February, 1960. He replied to the charge-sheet and also explained his position. His explanation was considered by the superior authorities and his carelessness and negligence was proved. However a lenient view was taken about his negligence and he was re-instated in service vide order dated 19th April, 1960. In the same order, it was also mentioned that the amount stated above should be recovered from him. This was done because his Department thought that in this way, recovery of the amount would be possible from him. He was interviewed by the Executive Engineer, Roads Division and he showed his inability to pay the amount in lump sum and, therefore, monthly deductions were made from his pay.
4. ' Against this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the then Chief Engineer, West Region, Quetta as in those days he was working under him ; who requisitioned all the relevant and connected documents and after examining them suggested that a proper enquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1960 be conducted against him, vide his order, dated 24th February 1966.
5. ' As a consequence of this order, a proper enquiry were conducted against him, as per Rules ; and pending linalisatIon of the inquiry, recovery was stopped from the appellant.
6. ' The Enquiry Officer after checking the entire record again and completing the necessary formalities submitted his report on 21st December 1969, according to which the appellant was held responsible for the loss of Government stores to the extent of Rs, 9,714-14 annals instead of Rs, 2,121- 6 annas as stated above. Consequently he was charge-sheeted on 25th February 1969, by the Executive Engineer, Roads Division No, Karachi, as the appellant was serving under him in those days. His reply to the charge-sheet was duly considered and he was served with a showcase notice by the Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad on 26th January, 1971, in which it was stated as to why the above mentioned amount should not be recovered from him.
7. ' In the meantime the appellant filed a Civil Suit which was dismissed due to want of jurisdiction.
8. ' The appellant then filed appeals before the Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, Hyderabad and Secretary, Communication and Works Department. The Chief Engineer Highways, Hyderabad Division rejected his appeal on 21st June, 1979. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 25th July, 1979.
9. ' Original record of stores and handing and taking over charge papers of various store articles as per Form No, 11 of Mirpur Bathero Roads, Sub-Division were examined by the Tribunal. There were shortages in M. S. Bars of about 20-18-0-17 tons. This was owned by Nazim Hussain who was Storekeeper and necessary deductions were made from his salary.
10. ' As regards shortages in respect of r M. S. Bars, when the appellant took over charge of stores on 16th March, 1956 from his predecessor on Form-II, a quantity of 1.140 tons was brought forward.
11. During the tenure of his office, 21-7-0-7 tons of i" M. S. Bars were received, making a total of 22-8.0-7 tons. Unto February 1956, out of this stock only 2-1,40 tons were issued for some project and still there were 20-740 tons available in stock. He handed over charge of the stores on 15th May 1956 to one Nazim Husuln. During this period, when the charge of stores was with him, in the record it is shown that the balance brought forward as per Form-11 upto March, 1956, was 20-4-0-19 tons. Out of this stock upto May 1956, was tons 10-1040 were issued for some projects, and when he was handing over charge, there was still a balance of 9-14-2-19 tons i" M. S. Bars, The appellant has tried to argue that these shortages were coming from the days of his predecessor Mr. Burney and has stated that he took over charge from Mr. Burney only on paper, without physically verifying the stocks. Thus he is trying to shift responsibility for these shortages on the shoulders of Mr. Burney, his predecessor. He has failed to prove that these shortages were continuing from the days of his predecessor Mr. Burney. When he took over charge from Mr. Burney it was his duty to check the entire stores physically and take proper charge from him, instead of taking the charge on paper.
12. In view of this, the responsibility for these shortages of r M. S. Ba amounting to 9-14-2-19 tons fully devolves on him and he should be held responsible for the loss of this much quantity of Government stores,' which are worth about Rs, 9,714-14 annas as per prices and other charges of those days.