' MUSHTAQ ALL KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant Deputy Director, Agricultural Engineering, Hyderabad Division, Tando Jam, has been punished under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for submitting a false report and his two increments have been withheld with cumulative effect.
Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this service appeal.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that by a letter, dated 27th December, 1974, Director, lqbal Zubairi of Geotech Corporation, requested Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Sind, for loan of one straight rotary drilling rig lying at Tando Jam Workshop. The Director gave the undertaking to repair the rig and replace the parts entirely at their cost and to pay the usual rental to the Government. Orders were passed for making the rig available to the Corporation on deposit of security/bank guarantee of the value of machine. Repairs were to be carried out by Geotech.
Rental was to be fixed. The rig was to be returned by Geotech at the end of two months. This order was communicated by the Superintending Engineer, Agricultural Machinery to the Agricultural Engineer, Tando Jam.
3. Mr. Naik Muhammad Bablani who was Agricultural Engineer, Tando Jam entered into an agreement with Geotech Corporation. The agreement is dated 10th January, 1975. The language used in this agreement shows that the draft must have been produced by Geotech Corporation and it must have been accepted by the then Agricultural Engineers, Hyderabad Division, without further scrutiny. There is nothing to suggest that the draft agreement was either referred to the Secretary for approval or that the Law Department was consulted. Agricultural Engineer signed this agreement on his own responsibility. This agreement provided that the rental shall start from the date of the "commissioning" of the rig after completion of the repairs. The possibility of the rig being left without carrying out the repairs was not envisaged. The advance payment of rental was not mentioned. It was not stated that the Geotech Corporation would re-deliver the rig at Tando Jam Workshop after the period of two months. It was not mentioned that the rig would be operated by the technician lent by the Agricultural Department. The question of deposit of the amount covering the value of the rig, viz. Rs, 5 lacs or a bank guarantee was not mentioned in the agreement. Nor was there any mention of the accessories to be supplied in detail.
4. Instead of depositing cash security or bank guarantee a surety bond was furnished from the Pioneer Insurance Company Limited and they in turn informed the Secretary, Agriculture, that they had given an undertaking, that if the Geotech Corporation failed to return the rig and its accessories they Mould pay the sum of Rs, 5 lacs. The surety bond was valid for 6 months from the date of issue.
5. The Agricultural Engineer took no further precaution and ordered delivery of the rig and accessories. Mr. Masood Ahmad Bhutto, Workshop Superintendent, then delivered the rig and nine accessories including Cassing Pipes 197 feet and 200 feet. The list of the accessories was sent by the Director, Agricultural Engineering to the Secretary by a letter, dated 22nd February, 1975. The Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Tando Jam was required in writing to collect back the rig and accessories from the Company on the expiry of two months period on 11th March, 1975.
6. Geotech Corporation did not honour the undertaking and they left the rig as it was without carrying out of repairs or replacing the parts. They paid no rental on the plea that they had not "commissioned" the rig. The Assistant Agricultural Engineer did not arrange to collect the rig and accessories from the Company on 11th March, 1975 in spite of definite orders. The Company by letter, dated 9th April, 1975 asked the Director. Agricultural Engineering Machinary to arrange the collection of the rig from site but this was not done. In fact, no action appears to have been taken either to claim damages from the Company for failure to carry out the repairs as undertaken by them or to claim the rental for two months or return of the machine and parts. Nor was the surety bond issued by Pioneer Insurance Company Limited forfeited within six months of the date of issue.
All this showed clear negligence on the part of the Agricultural Engineering Directorate. The machine remained lying at the site without anyone to look after it and this fact was observed by the public and the press. The daily `Ibrat' of Hyderabad could not help publication of this state of affairs in the issue of the paper, dated 16th October, 1975. It was then that the matter came to the notice of the Government. The case was taken up by the Anti-Corruption Establishment and other relevant agencies. The appellant was posted at the time as Agricultural Engineer, Hyderabad Division, Tando Jam. He was ordered by the Director, Agricultural Engineering to conduct an inquiry into the allegations as reported in Daily 'Ibrat'. The appellant, however, submitted a one page report mentioning very brief facts and did not fix the responsibility for the loss of valuable property of the Government worth Rs, 5 lacs or more. He just mentioned that no misappropriation nor embezzlement had been made by any officer of the Department though, Mr. M.A. Bhutto, the then Workshop Superintendent had allowed the Cassing Pipes to be issued with the boring rig as being included in the accessories.
7. The Government through the Chief Secretary and authorised officer issued show-cause notice to the appellant on 29th September, 1979 for submitting a false report and failing to point out the non- compliance of the orders of the Secretary relating to the obtaining of security deposit or bank guarantee before handing over the said machine. That the appellant also failed to fix responsibility for allowing the firm to take delivery of the drilling stores valued at Rs, 1 lac without any orders. That the appellant also failed to mention non-payment of the rental and transport charges by the firm.
The principal allegation in the show-cause notice was that the appellant had not cared even to visit the site and he failed to check that the firm had actually removed the machinery to Rawalpindi without knowledge or permission of the Secretary, Agriculture Department.
8. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan for the appellant has argued that the appellant had mentioned the facts regarding the issue of Casing Pipes by the Superintendent of Stores for which the Superintendent, Mr. Masood Ahmad Bhutto, had actually been punished with stoppage of increments. That his report was brief because the terms of reference were not defined and he was under the impression that he had only to enquire about misappropriation or embezzlement. It is rather unfortunate that the matter was not viewed by the Government in its proper perspective and a more responsible officer was not appointed to enquire into the above transaction resulting in loss of several lacs to the province. The officer responsible for signing this agreement and handling the transaction appears to be Mr. Naik Muhammad A. Bablani, Director, Agricultural Engineering, who appears to have been exonerated after issue of show-cause notice. The laxity on his part as detailed above was, however, so obvious that it could not have escaped notice of the appellant who had been asked to examine into the bungling and make a report. We cannot, therefore, agree with the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that the report submitted by the appellant to the Government contained true appraisal of the facts. The appellant was officer of the same grade as Mr. Bablani and he did not consider it necessary to highlight the lapses of the officer responsible for this deal. The appellant has already been very leniently punished and we can see no reasons for interference.
9. In the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Given under our hand and the seal of this Tribunal this 6th day of February, 1985, at Karachi.