' Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 24-9-1981 and dated 6-5-1982 passed by respondent No, 2 and order, dated 3-3-1983, communicated to the appellant on 2-4-1983, passed by respondent No,1, be set aside and the appeal of the appellant be accepted with all benefits of service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was working as Foodgrains Inspector in the Food Department at Purchase Centre, Bhabra in Sargodha District was served with a show-cause notice, dated 7-6-1981 (details as per Annexure A/1). The reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant, as per Annexure A/2. In the reply to the show-cause notice the appellant denied the allegations as alleged in the show-cause notice. The reply to the show-cause notice was considered by the Authorised Officer. He was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer made recommendations to the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, for imposing major penalty on the appellant, keeping in view the irregularities committed by him. He was also heard in person by the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha and he was reduced in rank i,e, from the Foodgrains Inspector to that of Foodgrains Supervisor with the direction that the appellant shall not be considered for re-promotion unless the appellant obtains four good A.C.Rs, vide order, dated 24-9-1981, passed by the said Deputy Director.
The appellant submitted a review petition to the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha, which was dismissed by order, dated 6-5-1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Director Food Punjab, Lahore, which was considered and punishment modified vide his impugned order, dated 3-3-1983, communicated to the appellant by Deputy Director Food, Sargodha, on 2-4-1983. The Director Food upheld the order of reduction in rank of the appellant, but the punishment banning his re- promotion was considered harsh and it was ordered that the promotion case of the appellant be placed before the promotion committee for consideration on merit, provided he is ripe for promotion on the basis of his seniority position. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations in the show-cause notice are of such a nature that it needed a fulfledged inquiry. These allegations also include charges of corruption and it was incumbent upon the departmental authorities that a regular enquiry should have been held, to give an opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. Thus, the appellant has been punished without proving the charges against him and putting up his defence. The learned counsel for the appellant has further refuted charges given in the charge-sheet by elaborating each charge as follows:-
(1) On receipt of eight trucks, as alleged in charge No, 1, at Storage Centre, Sargodha II, and having come to know that the tenderer had mixed the old wheat, all these trucks were transported back on the risk and cost of the tenderer. Simultaneously a good quality wheat in lieu thereof was replaced and a certificate was also obtained from the Centre Incharge P.R.I. Sargodha. Thus, there was no loss to the Government on this account.
(ii) The allegation No,2 is also incorrect and no basis to stand upon. The appellant never purchased old and weaverled wheat. The appellant's vigilance in the procurement of good quality of wheat is established from the fact that he transported back the eight trucks with inferior quality wheat and got it replaced with good quality wheat, resulting no loss to Government.
(iii) The allegation No,3 is also incorrect. The appellant had watched the interest of growers/petty farmers and they were accommodated properly. There was no complaint whatsoever in this either orally or in writing.
(iv) As far as allegation No,4 is concerned the same has not been established from record.
(v) The allegation No,5 is also incorrect and baseless. The fact remains that the G.P.13 of 100 bags was issued correctly to the truck driver but after thorough examination of quantity of wheat, 18 bags of wheat were found below specification and were unloaded at the spat. But unfortunately, the appellant forgot to amend the G.P. 13, due to rush of work.
5. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had accomplished his duty with devotion at a station like Bhabra, which is situated at far-off place.The quantity of wheat procured was large and there was no storage centre at Bhabra.
This large quantity of wheat had to be immediately transported to Sargodha. The trucks were not easily available. The appellant's work should have been appreciated; rather than punishing him for the allegations which are false, misleading and as a result of misconception on the part of the departmental authorities.
6. Controverting the above arguments, the leaned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by respondents on this appeal and also detailed impugned orders issued by the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha and Director Food, Punjab. It has been contended by the learned District Attorney that though the appellant was guilty of gross misconduct and negligence even then he has been treated very leniently and sympathetic consideration has been given while accepting his appeal partly by the Director Food, Punjab wherein his punishment has been reduced.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through minutely the record of this case. The learned counsel for the appellant has advanced arguments and contended that the appellant has not been guilty of the allegations, also no regular enquiry was held to substantiate and prove these allegations. I have consulted the record of this case. A preliminary enquiry was held. Moreover substantial evidence was available in support of the allegations/ charges. On these grounds the decision of the District Food Controller, Sargodha (Annexure A/I) to dispense with regular enquiry is in order. The study of impugned order of Deputy Director Food, Sargodha and the Director Food, Punjab, and parawise comments submitted on this appeal, reveal that the charges against the appellant stand established and the appellant is guilty of the misconduct. I also find that a lenient and sympathetic view has already been taken by the Director Food in reducing the punishment of the appellant so awarded to him by the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.