' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). - Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah retired Sub-Engineer, Irrigation Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, SCARP No, 1, Lahore and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 14th March, 1979 passed by respondent No, 1 and order dated 17th July, 1980 passed by respondent No 2 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah, was working as Sub-Engineer in the Irrigation Department as In-charge Mohlan Tube-well Section in the year 1974. He was transferred, vide Chief Engineer, Lyallpur order, dated 7th December.
1974. These orders were conveyed by the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Operation Division (South) to Sub-Divisional Officer, Incharge for immediate compliance. Instead of complying these orders, the appellant arranged casual leave from 27th January, 1975 to 3rd February, 1975 and continued applying leave on medical grounds from 4th February, 1975 to 15th May, 1975. In the meanwhile the appellant was directed, vide Executive Engineer, Tube-well Operation Division (South), Sheikhupura order, dated 5th February, 1975 to hand over of the charge immediately to his -successors. Mr. Muhammed Arshad, Sub-Engineer. The appellant was also directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buchiana Sub-Division, vide his letter, dated 8th February, 1975 and 17th February, 1975 to hand over the charge. He was again ordered, vide Executive Engineer, Tube-well Operation (South), Sheikhupura, dated 7th March, 1975 'for handing over the charge of his Section but he failed to hand over the charge. The appellant remained on medical leave without sanction from 4th February, 1975 to 15th May, 1975. On resuming his duty, though he made a request for handing over the charge but the appellant failed to complete his charge and the Sub-Divisional Officer Incharge Buchiana Sub-Division had to carry out the physical verification on 24th June, 1975 so that the same could be made over to Mr. Muhammad Arshad, Sub-Engineer, his successor, who had already assumed the charge on 7th February, 1975, when the appellant was absent from duty. On physical verification of the stock, the shortage embezzlement to the tune of Rs, .30,238.87 was found from the stock held by the appellant being the Custodian of Government stores. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 5th February, 1979 alleging absence from duty, not obeying his transfer orders and shortage of material worth Rs, 30,238.87. An enquiry was conducted for the alleged charges. A show-cause notice was also served to the appellant. He was heard in person and was awarded punishment, vide order, dated 14th March. 1979 by Respondent No, 1 wherein a recovery of Rs, 17,382,87 was ordered from the appellant at 1/3rd of his pay and further stoppage of his annual increments for two years with future effect was also ordered. The appellant made an appeal against the order of Respondent No,
1. The Respondent No, 2 varied the punishment so ordered by Respondent No, 1 and the appellant was held responsible for causing loss to the Government and an order for recovering an amount of Rs, 8168/75 only from his pay, pension, gratuity etc., or as arrears of land revenue was passed. The order of respondent No, 1 regarding stoppage of his annual increments for two years with future effect was also upheld. This order of Respondent No, 2, dated 17th July, 1980 was endorsed by the Executive Engineer, Tube-well Operation Division (South). Sheikhupura, vide his endst : No, 2826/2-E, dated 9th May, 1981 (Annexure `P') received by the appellant on 20th May, 1981. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant reported for duty on 16th May, 1975 and prepared a list for handing over the charge but he was not allowed to hand over the charge. This fact is clear from the documents attached with the appeal. Furthermore the shortages pointed out against the appellant are arbitrary. This is clear from the facts that in the first instance shortage of Rs, 30,238.87 was shown in the charge-sheet/statement of allegations but this was reduced to Rs, 17,382.87 when the impugned order was issued by the respondent No, 1 and further reduced to Rs, 8,168.75 when the other impugned order was passed by the Respondent No,
2. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the shortage shown against him in case of Sr. No, 3 C.
F. M. D. Pump No, 15 wherein the rebate was given Rs, 3,000 whereas. Actually Rs, 75.00 rebate should have been given. Thus the appellant was deprived of the adjustment of a sum of Rs, 45,00 by the Respondents. Similarly the remaining shortage shown against the appellant are also uncalled for. It has also been argued that the appellant had fully justified the shortages to respondent Nos, 1 and 2 when he was heard in person and he should have not been held responsible for the shortage of Rs, 8,168.75 by the Respondent No,
2. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department controverted these arguments by saying that the appellant was transferred from Mohlan Tube-well Section to Buchiana Section.
In order to avoid his transfer, the appellant remained absent from duty and did not hand over the charge in spite of the fact, that he was directed by the Executive Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer to do so repeatedly. Thus he intentionally avoided to hand over the charge. As there was no alternative, his stock was got checked by a responsible officer, i. e., S. D.
0., Buchiana, Tube-well Sub-Division who physically verified the stock and prepared the lists showing the shortage in the stock. The appellant was later on given every opportunity by the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 to account for the shortages and thus he should have no grievance, as he has been fully accommodated by his superiors.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments put forward by the parties and have perused the record in detail of this case. The stock registers were also called for from the concerned Sub-Division and were gone through very carefully. We have satisfied ourselves after going through these registers that the stock was physically checked by the Sub-Divisional Officer and after his verification the stock was taken over by the successor Sub-Engineer. Later on every facility was provided to the appellant to trace and return the material found short against him and also he was allowed concessions. Thus the appellant has been treated favourably by respondents Nos, 1 and 2 and the appellant should have n grievance in this case as he has finally been held responsible for that shortage only which he could not account for in any way.
6. Keeping in view the above analysis, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.