' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Syed Muhammad Ashraf Shah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that recovery of Rs,6,802.25 on account of alleged shortage of 91 litres Nevacuran, be cancelled as unjustified and illegal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted in Circle II Gojra District Toba Tek Singh in the year 1977, there was a shortage of 91 litres medicines used for pesticides. On this an enquiry was held and the F.A.D. Faisalabad vide his letter, dated 17-11-1980, found Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Agriculture Officer, Gojra II as responsible for the said shortage whereas he found the appellant as innocent. The appellant retired on 1-10-1980. Enquiry was conducted in his absence when the appellant had proceeded to Haj and ex parte proceedings were taken aginst him and he was held responsible for such shortage. His appeal was rejected by the Secretary, Agriculture, without giving him any chance to defend himself. Hence this appeal.
4. The appellant has appeared in person and has submitted that he was a very poor man with 34 years of unblemished record of service and had retired since 1980. According to the appellant, the case has been taken against him after 2-3/4 years of his retirement, without associating the appellant with the enquiry so conducted in his absence. He has vehemently argued that the case was unjustified both on the principle of audi alteram partem as well as that no retired Government servant could be proceeded against after he has severed his connection with the service and had gone on pension.
5. On the other hand we have looked into the record of this case as well as heard the learned District Attorney who has adopted the comments submitted by the Department.
6. What we find is that the Department has avoided to mention about the first inquiry in which Muhammad Hussain, Agriculture Officer, was held responsible for the shortage and has laid lot of stress on the second inquiry by which. The appellant was found guilty and said Muhammad Hussain was let off. We have satisfied ourselves that the appellant was proceeded against when he had gone for Haj without associating him with the fresh inquiry and as well as affording any chance to defend himself. We have also found that in the second inquiry there is no mention of the first inquiry which went in favour of the appellant and no cogent reason has been advanced to show that either the result of the first inquiry was biased, incorrect or unjustified. We also cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the appellant's retirement took place in 1980 and under the Pension Rules, no measures should have been taken against him, full after 2-3/4 years of the said retirement without issuing him a show-cause notice.
7. In view of the above, we are unable to sustain the impugned order so passed against the appellant and quash the same as being biased, illegal, unjustified and strictly against the principle of audi alteram partem. There will be no order as to costs.