S. ABDUR JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). - Mr. Abdur Rashid has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore and Director Food, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 10-9-1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was performing the duties of analyst in the Food Department was issued show-cause notice dated 13-7-1981 by the Assistant Director of Food (Administration) that the samples so drawn by him from the rice stocks were incorrect as the fresh samples from the same rice stock were re-checked at Karachi on super inspection and there was considerable variation in the result of appellant's visual checking and super checking. Appellant submitted reply to above show-cause notice to the Authorised Officer but the same was found unstisfactory and the appellant was removed from service. Hence this Appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and District Attorney assisted by a representative of the Department and then read the record carefully. In this case what has been found is that the appellant was asked to inspect by visual check certain quantity of rice in the form of sample on the following Centres :-----
1. Ghakhar.
2. Warburton.
3. Sukheke.
4. Khankah Dogran.
5. Sukheke.
The result given by the appellant was as follows :---
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the results ascertained on super inspection were not in respect of the samples drawn at the abovenoted Centres in his presence and which had been visually tested by the appellant but these results represented the samples drawn at the choice of the Rice Milling Corporation who submitted such samples for super test at Karachi and that too at appellant's back. It has been ultimately argued that such like procedure was absolutely unwarranted both in law and was against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to documents which he has placed on record as R. I. To show that super inspection of same sample effected twice at intervals yielded different varied results with the result that no sanctity could be attached to such results. The learned counsel has also produced the order, of the same officer M. A. Qureshi, Assistant Director Food in case of another official Muhammad Masud Ahmad who was also proceeded against under E & D Rules for the same charges as those against the appellant but in the former's case the punishment so awarded to him was only stoppage of annual increments for three years. In this way it has been argued that the respondent has been giving discriminatory treatment at their own whims and fancy without applying the same yard--stick to appellant which he has applied to others which in itself was sufficient to-vitiate proceedings against appellant.
6. Ale have carefully attended to the arguments so advanced and find that appellant did give the result by visual test of certain samples at certain centres according to his own judgment and under his own limitations. It has been conceded before us by the Departmental Representative that samples which were submitted for super test at Karachi were not the same upon which visual test of appellant were based. Those were different samples selected by the Authorities at their own discretion in the absence of the appellant. When integrity of a person is going to be tested and is likely to be punished as a result thereof then it is incumbent upon the Authority to associate him at various procedural stages of such tests as result of an authority which is likely to arrive at conclusion of guilt against a civil servant. In the present case it is being said that they, results of visual tests so made by the appellant did not correspond with the results of super tests so ascertained at Karachi. Therefore it was incumbent upon the respondents to associate the appellant throughout the process so adopted in this behalf. To elaborate it further we would like to point out that first of all he should have been associated at the time when samples were drawn at Karachi then when such samples were tested in the Laboratory and thereafter be should have been confronted with the result of super inspection in order to explain variation which are being alleged to have occurred. In this manner if so advised appellant should have been in a position to cross-examine authors of the reports who made super tests. It may also be kept in mind that the appellant who is not a highly qualified person and has to work without aid of any instruments always gives his opinion at random. It is also a matter of common knowledge that as soon as he gives the opinion he becomes functus ofcio. The rice in question is always despatched with a gap of time between inspection and actual despatch and possibility of substitution of the quality can also not be excluded. In this way we are of the considered opinion that the proceedings so taken against the appellant are against the principle of natural justice as being one-sided and without affording him any opportunity to present his own point of view.
7. We also cannot remain oblivious of the two documents which have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that the persons performing super inspection at Karachi are also prone to commit mistake as is obvious from the documents so placed on record.
We also take strong note of the order dated 1-11-1981 in case of Masud Ahmad passed by M. A.
Qureshi, Assistant Director, Food who has treated said person in a different manner whereas the charges are of the same nature.
8. Thus, without going into further merits of the case so pointed canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the con--sidered opinion that the Appellant cannot be considered at fault parti--cularly when he has not been associated with the proceedings and has been condemned without having been given any chance to defend himself.
9. In view of the above analysis of the entire facts of the case, as well as the legal objection involved we hereby set aside the impugned order with the direction that the respondents can proceed against the appellant afresh, if so advised, observing all the mandatory legal formali--ties laid down under the E & D Rules. The appellant shall have to be re-instated in service first to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant.
The period during which he remained out of service, will be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
Name of Centre. Lot No.Original result.S. Insp. result.Difference.
1. Ghakhar. 13 3.00% 4.59%1.5%
2. Warburton. 252 Pass 16.84%.16.84%
3. Sukheke. 65 0.15 % 7.09/06.94
4. Kbankah Dogran124 0.75% 4.47%3.72%
5. Sukheke. 64 Pass 12.34%12.34%