ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Ahmad Mubeen, Food Grain Inspector, Food Department, Punjab, has made this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, wherein he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 15-8-1981 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. Ahmad Mubeen, who is serving in the Punjab Food Department, was served with a show cause notice dated 18-7-1979 by the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, on the allegation that during the scheme in the year 1976-7', a shortage loss weighing 2458-12-12 maunds of indigenous wheat was declared against the appellant. The appellant was held responsible for this loss due to his negligence and a recovery order of Rs. 91,941.12 was passed by the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, vide his order dated 22-11-1979. Being aggrieved of this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, on 16-1-1980. Director Food, Punjab considered his appeal and issued recovery order vide his order dated 15-8-1981, whereupon the appellant was held responsi--ble for the payment of a sum of Rs. 39,155.52 instead of Rs. 91,941.42 as ordered earlier by Deputy Director Food. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the year 1976-77 the rainfall was abnormal. There was no Government owned storage accommodation and the stocks had to be stored in private godowns and in open by making special arrangements.
The stores could not be fumigated properly and also there were losses in the open storage due to abnormal rains which were due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances and were beyond the control of the appellant. Keeping the above facts in view, the appellant was not given due rebate or concessions while calculating loss shortages ; as the appellant vitas admissible for giving rebale up to 3 -- % as was being given by the Food Department to the mill-owners. If this rebate would have been given to the appellant then there is no shortage/loss against the appellant. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is clear from the revised order of Director Food, Punjab, that the appellant was allowed concession of shortage up to 1.5%. Thus it has been admitted by the Director Food that there was loss in the Government stores which was not within the control of the appellant and was to be written of.
5. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was wrongly burdened with 555 maunds of wheat, as the said wheat was damaged and the same was burnt by the Martial Law Authorities having found unfit for human consumption. The Director Food failed to take notice of this fact and had worked out a sum of Rs. 25,425.55 against the appellant.
This was unjustified and uncalled for on the part of the Director to levy a charge against the appellant for the damaged wheat which was burnt under the orders of the competent Authority.
6. The appellant's counsel further argued that this matter involved huge loss and it definitely needed a regular enquiry to arrive at a correct conclusion. The appellant should have been given an opportunity to produce his defence before the Enquiry Officer and put up his view point to prove innocence in the matter. As this has not been done, the appellant has been deprived of the opportunities to defend himself and he bas been found responsible of such loss/shortages which have not been proved against him.
7. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that while the appeal was accepted by Director Food and the recovery order was revised, all the pros and cons of the case were considered. He was allowed the admissible shortage and thus this final recovery order passed is perfectly in order, as shortage as admissible under the rules had already been allowed to the appellant. The legal objection was also raised by the learned District Attorney that the impugned order by Director Food was passed on 15-3-81 but the appeal has been filed on 31-3- 1982 to the Punjab Service Tribunal. This appeal is time-barred by 7-- months. This was, however, rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant by submitting that the order might have been passed in August 1981, but it was never conveyed to the appellant. The appellant came to know of this in March, 1982. He got a copy of the same and immediately filed an appeal to this Tribunal.
8. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties. As far as legal objection of learned District Attorney for time limit is concerned, we have consulted the record of the Ahmad Mubeen's case as submitted by the Department. No doubt the order was passed on 15-8-1981 by Director Food but the District Food Controller, Sahiwal, had issued the recovery order to the appellant vide his order dated 16-11-1981. However, there is no proof available in the file that this order was got acknowledged from the appellant by the District Food Controller, Sahiwal. Thus the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant came to know of this order in March, 1982, appears to be correct. Thus, the objection of the learned District Attorney for appeal being dime-barred is not sound and is ignored.
9. We have perused the record of this case very carefully and have come to the conclusion that .The matter was of such a nature which needed regular enquiry, as different circumstances and aspects leading to this shortage/losses were to be considered, analysed and gone through before fixing responsibility of this loss/shortages. As no regular enquiry was conducted, the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to produce his defence and submit his view-point, thus, we consider that the shortages/ losses arrived at are one-sided. Furthermore, the procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, has not been followed properly. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that justice has not been done with the appellant.
10. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant as per para. 5 above regarding 555 maunds of wheat burnt on the orders of the competent authority and wrongly charged against the appellant, also needs examination and scrutiny.
11. Keeping the above analysis in view, the case is remanded to the Authority to proceed against the appellant afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant be also given an opportunity to defend himself by adopting the procedure of holding a regular enquiry so that no injustice is done with him.
There will be no orders as to costs.