' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)-Muhammad Sharif has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the orders issued by the Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore vide his No, AB-I (s) 32/81, dated 10th April 1982, to the address of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and a Notice from Tehsildar Lahore, dated 12th July, 1982, by which he has been called upon to pay Rs, 44,607.80 on account of over payment to sellers. He has impleaded the Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and the Director of Food, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the recovery of Rs, 44,607.80 be waived off.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Assistant Food Controller in the Food Department and retired from service in the year 1980. In 1971-72 Wheat Procurement Scheme the appellant was posted at Daska, District Sialkot, and the wheat was stored in the private godowns of Ahrtis/seilers taken on no rent basis under instructions of District Food Controller, Sialkot. A special audit was conducted by a Senior Auditor Mr. Rehmat Ullah under Government order regarding wheat purchase for scheme ,ear 1973-74. In para. 9 of the said audit report that a sum of Rs, 38,614.50 was paid to the sellers as permissible under para. 42 of Wheat Procurement Scheme.
However, the Accountant-General Punjab also conducted audit of Wheat Scheme 1973-74 after the special audit by the Food Department Senior Auditor Mr. Rehmat Ullah with regard to the payment made by the appellant to the sellers and took no exception to the Scheme. The appellant became conscious of the fact when Tehsildar Lahore on 12th July, 1982 asked him to pay Rs, 44,607.80 by 9th August, 1982 as arrears of land revenue under threat of being detained in judicial lock-up. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties and perused the record so produced before us with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had made arrangement to store the wheat on no rent basis and his services were duly appreciated by Mr. Yusaf Kamal, Deputy Director Food at the relevant time. It has been submitted that special audit conducted by Mr. Rehmat Ullab fully endorsed that the appellant was fully permitted to make payment under para. 42 of Wheat Procurement Scheme, because the stocks of wheat were stored in the private godowns of Ahritis. It was further stated that the said wheat was stored in the private godowns under instructions of District Food Controller, Sialkot, as well as of Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, dated 11 th July, 1973. It has been urged that payment of paisa ten per maund to the sellers was fully permissible under the Procurement Scheme. In these circumstances it has been prayed that when the Accountant-General as well as Senior Auditor had raised no objection to the said payment by the appellant to the sellers as required in para. 42 of the Procurement Scheme, the recovery of payment so made against the appellant, was highly unjustified.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments submitted by the Department and has submitted that the action so taken against the appellant was fully justified, therefore, no exception could be taken to the impugned order so passed against him.
7. We have attended to the arguments of the parties carefully. Para. 41 as well as para. 42 of the Wheat Procurement Policy 1975-76, clearly makes permissible of payment of paisa ten per maund as commission in addition to the delivery charges, therefore, we do not find any reason that exception should be taken against the action of the appellant, which was strictly in accordance with the Wheat Procurement Policy. Moreover, it is a settled principal of law and procedure that when a Government servant is retired from service, no action can be taken against him for any misconduct alleged to have been committed during the course of service unless and until he has served with a show-cause notice to that effect. In the present case, the appellant has retired and there was no complaint against him either by the Senior Auditor or by the Accountant-General, Punjab, who fully endorsed the payment of this sum, to Ahrtis etc., therefore, to take unilateral action like the one under appeal, would be highly illegal as well as against the Pension Rules so laid down in this behalf in favour of the retired Government servants.
8. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and waive off the recovery of Rs, 44, 607.80 against the appellant, as both unjustified as well as illegal. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.