' In this case the appellant, Haji Muhammad Ashraf, has impugned the order dated 7th April, 1979, passed by the Deputy Director, Food, Sargodha Region, according to which the appellant was required to pay to the Government a sum of Rs, 25,732.39 being the value of the shortage of Wheat occurring in various godowns in his charge. The appeal also impugns order dated 8th December, 1980 issued by the Director Food, Punjab, whereby the appellant's appeal against the recovery of the above-mentioned amount was rejected.
2. The facts of this case are connected with the Government Scheme to purchase Wheat from growers during 1976-77. At that time he was posted as Assistant Food Controller, Jhang. The target for the Jhang (1) P. R. Centre was fixed at 16,000 tons. As the capacity of the godown was much less the Government decided to use educational institutions and even railway platforms to store the surplus Wheat, and issued instructions to Food Department officials accordingly. However even this storage proved inadequate and it was decided to shift some of the stocks to Jhelum, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Campbellpur. For this purpose stocks were filled up on railway platforms for movement to these places, but due to shortage of railway wagons the desired movement could not take place and the stock became exposed to the heavy rains of June and October, 1976. In the meantime the receiving stations (Lahore, Jhelum, Cambellpur and Rawalpindi) also expressed their inability to store further stocks of Wheat. The D.F.C., Jhang, continued to inspect the stocks and submitted fortnightly reports on their condition. This went on till March, 1977 and a considerable quantity of the Wheat was destroyed or damaged, as much by rains as by other means like worms, birds etc. The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore, visited Jhang in December, 1976, and admitted in his report that the Wheat stock was ingested and that there was shortage in the bags also. It was found by the D.F.C. Jhang when the Wheat stocks were being cleared, that the loss had been due to natural causes beyond the control of the staff and that the loss may be written off. The Deputy Director, Food, Sargodha Region, vide his memo dated 11th January, 1979, gave the opinion that since loss in each godown exceeded Rs, 10,000 and that since he was empowered to write off upto Rs, 10,000 in each case had not more, the amount, over and above Rs, 10,000 in each case be recovered from the appellant. This post over and above Rs, 10,000 for all the godowns came to Rs, 25,732.37 and this is how this figure Was determined as the amount to be recovered from him. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice to which he replied. On receipt of his reply the Deputy Director, Sargodha, issued orders writing off loss upto Rs, 10,000 in each case and charging the loss over and above this amount to the appellant. The appeal against this order was rejected by the Director Food, Punjab.
3. The parties were heard. It was stated on behalf of the appellant that most of the point raised in his defence by the appellant had been admitted to be correct by the respondents in the parawise comments. It was submitted in addition that the loss to the Wheat stock had not been caused because of any slackness or misconduct on the part of the appellant. To expect him, therefore to pay up more than Rs, 25,000 on this account was both in just and illegal. As for the actual damage, the loss was in aggregate even less than one per cent for nine months of storage whereas at centres like Chiniot the loss was from 5 per cent to 7 per cent in a storage period of 5 to 7 months.
The appellant contended that the Wheat purchased was moisted to start with and this fact had been duly brought to the notice of the authorities. Moreover, the chemicals provided for fumigation could not be used on stocks lying in the open. It was submitted that in a meeting of Deputy Directors the Director Food, Punjab, had advised that instead of writing off Rs, 10,000 and ordering the recovery of the rest from concerned official the D.D.S. All such cases should refer to the higher authorities. This had not been done in the appellant's case and the order of recovery had been imposed upon him. For the respondents, the learned D.A. Submitted that there was some slackness on the part of the appellant, first in purchasing moisted wheat and then in not utilizing road transport for clearing the stocks and depending wholly on the railway which had a shortage of Wagons.
4. I have heard the parties with great attention and gone into the various documents minutely. One aspect of this case is certainly somewhat surprising. On behalf of the respondents the most of arguments, facts and contentions are admitted as correct and yet the recovery of Rs, 25,732.37 is justified. For example, it is admitted that the capacity of god owns was low; that the wheat stocks had to be stored on the platforms of railway stations; that sufficient number of railway wagons were not available ; that there was incessant rains in June and October, 1976 ; that the four receiving centers repeatedly requested for stoppage of deliveries to them as they too had no space ; that the stocks were inspected regularly and their conditions reported; that infestation of the stocks was found on examination; that the overall loss was only 0.73 per cent which was much lower than some other centers ; that the shortage and damage were due to natural causes ; and, finally, that the recovery was imposed on the appellant because the regional D.D.F. Was not financially empowered to write off only Rs, 10,000 in each case. In the presence of all this I fail to understand on what grounds the impugned orders have been issued. I am also unable to appreciate the reasoning behind the decision to write off Rs, 10,000 and recover the rest from the official concerned. In the instant case, it was stated by the respondents that the total loss caused by the negligence of the appellant was Rs, 1,08,479.36, but taking a lenient view- the appellant bad been required to pay Rs, 25,732.37, after the D.D.F. Had used his discretion and financial powers to write off all amounts upto Rs, 10,000. What was the yardstick to determine the exact percentage of the loss caused by the appellant's negligence and that caused by natural causes ? How was it that in all cases, i,e, in the various godowns the loss caused by nature was found to be exactly Rs, 10,000, leaving the rest to be paid by the appellant ? Justice and commonsense would compel one to observe that either the appellant was responsible for the loss caused because the stock was lying in the open and exposed to rain, or he was not so responsible. After a repeated reading of the parawise comments I have come to the conclusion that had the powers of the D.D.F. Allowed him to write off more than Rs, 10,000 in each case he would have done so. As it is, the responsibility of the appellant for the loss seems to have been determined in the light of the financial powers of the D.D.F. And not the actual failing, if any, of the appellant. This is strange logic indeed.
5. To my mind the crucial point to be decided in this case is not whether the appellant was actually responsible for the loss or not but whether the recovery can be allowed in the manner it has been ordered. I am convinced that as things have been put before me there is no case for imposition of recovery on the appellant. It has been very clearly stated that the D.D.F. Could only write off losses amounting to Rs, 10,000 in each case. The implication that he would have written off more if he had the powers is almost stated in so many words. The Officers in the field responsible for seeing the matter in its proper perspective and taking a correct view of the technicalities involved are convinced that the aggregate amount over and above the Rs, 10,000 in each case needs to be written off, but the Government somehow does not agree, so the appellant is penalised with the order of recovery. This is neither just nor proper nor legal ; rather it is arbitrary and in negation of the past record of the appellant whose integrity and efficiency are not doubted.
6. In view of the above I have no hesitation in giving the finding that the amount of Rs, 25,732.37 is not to be recovered from the appellant. The impugned orders are consequently set aside as of no legal avail and the . There will be no order as to costs.