' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Abdul Ghani has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order of the Superintending Engineer Headquarters, Irrigation, Lahore, dated 14-9-1981 bearing No, 3820/AII/81/23627/ 209/74, and that of the Chief Engineer, dated 19-5-1982 conveyed on 20-5-1982 vide Memo. No, 1561/PF. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and recovery of Rs,57,604.95 ordered against him for shortage of stock and T&P Article, be also set aside being illegal, arbitrary, based upon malice against the documentary evidence on record. The appellant has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Irrigation, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Superintending Engineer (Headquarters) Irrigation, Lahore Region, Lahore, Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Lahore Region, Lahore and Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) Circle, Irrigation Mughalpura, Lahore as respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department. While the appellant was serving as such in the year 1967 he was transferred as Sub- Engineer (Mech.) to work at Headworks Sub-Division Sulemanke and reported for duty on 16-5- 1967. He took over the charge from Mirza Muhammad Mustafa Sub-Engineer. The said Mirza Muhammad Mustafa had taken that charge from one Sarwar Javed, the Sub-Engineer, a few days back at that time. The charge was handed over and taken over by both the officials i,e, Mirza Muhammad Mustafa and Mr. Abdul Ghani. The appellant took over the charge from Mirza Muhammad Mustafa, the outgoing Sub-Engineer. However, no proper list of stock was prepared and these were not got signed by the appellant from the outgoing Sub-Engineer. The appellant however tried his best in asking Mirza Muhammad Mustafa to hand over him the stock and T&P articles by preparing a proper list but he did not do so. Consequently the appellant approached his S.D.O. Headworks Sulemanke to direct Mirza Muhammad Mustafa to complete and hand over the physical charge to the appellant. However, the outgoing Sub-Engineer did not prepare any detail list on the plea that he had already handed over the complete charge to the appellant and he was not required to do so under the Rules as the charge was with the appellant for last considerable period and the appellant had been dealing with the issue and receipt of stock in his absence after taking over from him. The corresponding took place between the S.D.O. And XEN incharge on this issue and ultimately the XEN ordered that the stock and T&P articles be physically checked by the S.D.O. Himself and the charge be got transferred to Malik Muhammad Afzal another Overseer who was posted in the meanwhile, in the place of appellant. Consequently a detailed list was prepared and signed by both the Sub-Engineers i,e, the appellant and the incoming Overseer, Malik Muhammad Afzal. On scrutiny of the whole case the appellant was charge-sheeted by Superintending Engineer, Headquarter Irrigation, Lahore on 8-2-1974 wherein the appellant was alleged responsible with Mirza Muhammad Mustafa Overseer, for shortage of stock and T&P articles amounting to Rs, 1,15,209.90. The detail of the charge-sheet, statement of allegations and list of shortage of T&P articles and stock are at Annexures 'W', 'W/I' and 'W/II', respectively. Mr. Ehsanullah Sardar, Executive Engineer was appointed an Enquiry Officer who held the appellant guilty of charges levelled against him. A show-cause notice was served by the respondent No,2 to the appellant on 2-2-1981. Reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant which was considered by the respondent No,2. He was also personally heard by the respondent No,2 and the appellant was ordered to pay a sum of Rs, 57,604.95 vide order, dated 14-9-1981 passed by Superintending Engineer, Headquarters Irrigation, Lahore (respondent No,2). The appellant made an appeal before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore which was rejected vide his order, dated 19- 5-1982. The appellant filed a suit before the civil Court, Lahore on 16-9-1982. The case was heard by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore wherein temporary injunction was also prayed for staying the recovery. However, the learned Civil Judge vide his order, dated 13-3-1983 held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction and the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear such appeal. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not responsible for the shortage for which he has been held so responsible. The record of this case shows that the appellant was- never handed over the stock and T&P articles by the outgoing Sub-Engineer i,e, Mirza Muhammad Mustafa who was required to prepare the lists of all the store and T&P articles, hand these over properly to the appellant. Mirza Muhammad Mustafa did not do so, though he was directed repeatedly by the S.D.O. And XEN Incharge to do so. The matter lingered on for months together and the stock remained lying as such. It was finally on the intervention of the Executive Engineer Incharge that the S.D.O. Checked the stock and T&P articles in his presence, got the lists prepared, got transferred these to Malik Muhammad Afzal, Overseer and the lists were signed by the appellant and the latter incoming Overseer i,e, Malik Muhammad Afzal.
Thus, the appellant is not at all responsible for the shortage for which the appellant has been punished. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the stock articles for which the appellant has been held responsible, also include some of the items which had outlived their life, had been consumed and did not exist in the stock, even, when the appellant was posted as Sub-Engineer at Headworks Sulemanke as is clear from the stock registers. Thus, the whole case has not only been cooked up against the appellant but the appellant has been falsely held responsible for the guilt of others and he has been punished for no fault of his. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be exonerated from the shortages for which he has been illegaly and arbitrarily held responsible.
4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted with the representative of the department, Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar, XEN has submitted that during the pendency of this appeal on the advice of the Tribunal the account of the stock and T&P articles has been re- checked by the Department very carefully, especially keeping in view the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant previously as well as at the time of hearing of this case that some of the items were shown against the appellant which had outlived their life, were consumed, did not exist on stock when the appellant was posted at Sulemanke Head works. It has been submitted by Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar, Executive Engineer that on re-checking, it has been found that out of the stock and T&P articles shown short against the appellant, the store worth Rs, 29,100 can be accepted to be remitted by the Department and the appellant is responsible for remaining loss amounting to Rs, 28,504.95, which has occurred due to his negligence/ embezzlement.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. We have consulted the record of this case time and again while this case came up for arguments before us and during the course of hearing of this case the Irrigation Department was asked for re-checking the account/shortages so alleged against the appellant as some ambiguity/deficiencies were pointed out by the appellant and appellant's counsel at the time of hearing of this case. The account has been re-checked by the Irrigation Department, Punjab and on the last date of hearing i,e, 15-12- 1983, it has been certified by Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department that the articles/store worth Rs,29,100 are remissible as has been found on scrutiny and re-checking of the accounts of the stock and T&P articles in dispute. We have satisfied ourselves that the accounts presented before us at this stage by the Irrigation Department are correct and the appellant is liable for the remaining shortage of Rs, 28,504.95.
6. Keeping in view the above facts, the appeal is partially accepted.
' The impugned orders are modified to the extent that recovery of Rs,28,504.95 be made instead of Rs, 57,604.95 as ordered in the impugned orders.
' There will be no order as to costs.