Tassadaq Hussain, Foodgrains Inspector, Liaqat Pur, District Rahimyar Khan; has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974. He has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Director, Food Multan Region, at Bahawalpur as respondents.
2. By, virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 1-8-1978 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 24-10-1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued a show--cause notice to the effect That as a result of scrutiny of record the appellant was found guilty for the loss of 60 tons of wheat pertaining to 1976-77 Scheme P. R. Centre Chabiana, District Bahawalnagar. The appellant was asked to show-cause as to why an action be not taken against him and a loss of Rs. 68,400 be not recovered from him. The appellant has submitted his reply to the show-cause notice.
4. Respondent No. 2, heard the appellant in person and ordered the recovery of Rs. 85,562.70 being the cost of 75.55 M. Tons of wheat. The appellant lodged a protest 'against this order and agitated that he should be proceeded in a fulfledged enquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. On this, respondent No. 2 issued a charge sheet to the appellant on 5-1-1978. The appellant submitted a reply but no decision was taken. The appellant also submitted an appeal to the respondent No. 1 which was rejected by him vide order dated 24-10-1981. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the appellant himself and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance It has been submitted that the entire case has been pro--cessed quite illegally. According to the learned counsel for the appellant no direct show-cause notices could have been issued through the Deputy Director Food. The same has to be processed through the authorised officer, as the Deputy Director, Food being the competent authority. It has been further submitted that once a charge-sheet was issued by the authority it was incumbent upon him to hold a fulfledged enquiry in the matter. The learned counsel has made a grievance that heavy rains had caused the damage a fact which has not been taken into consideration and similarly the loss from inevitable circumstances like disease of Susri Khapra has not been noted. In the end it has been submitted that although the Deputy Director had ordered that 1/3rd pay of the appellant be deducted to recover the amount but the Director has ordered that the same be recovered in four equal instalments which is very harsh and oppres--sive order.
6. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments so advanced before me and find that the authority. Which was initially appointed to proceed against the appellant for major penalty decided to withdraw the proceedings and convert the same into Departmental action for recovery of loss only. In the present case what has been done by the competent authority is that it has impose the liabilities and has ordered the recovery of loss without taking any other action against the appellant. In view of the above it cannot be said that the case against the appellant was a case of regular enquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. As according to the rules laid down in this behalf above loss can be recovered from a delinquent if the authority is of the opinion that the responsibility for such loss is established against him. The appellant in this case in compliance with the decision of the Director has also deposited Rs. 20,000 as a first instalment and has paid Rs. 2,005 besides the said earlier deposit. In this manner it can be said that he has accepted the decision of the Director with regard to his liabilities.
7. I am also not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel of the appellant that the huge loss was result of either rains or attack of Susri Khapra. In case there two calamities had occurred, it was the duty of the appellant to take safeguards of such eventualities and take in hand the preventive measure by using furnigate tablets and to cover the wheat with Polythene and mats. Therefore, I cannot absolve the appellant of this inaction.
8. In view of the above I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and dismiss the appeal being without any merits.