' Nazir Ahmad, ex-Foodgrains Supervisor, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 14th December, 1981 as well as 1st March, 1984 passed by the respondents be set aside and appellant be declared to be continuing in service with all back benefits of service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Foodgrains Supervisor at Centre Ghingi Colony, District Vehari, in the year 1976-77. He was called upon to face an enquiry with regard to shortage of wheat which was under his supervision and control. District Food Controller in his capacity as Authorized Officer directed to proceed against him under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. However, the appellant was proceeded under rule 6(3) of the E & D Rules, as according to the Authorized Officer the charge against the appellant was established on the strength of the record, therefore, he proceeded accordingly. The appellant was heard by Mr. Khalil Bhatti, Deputy Director Food, Multan, who imposed penalty of recovery of Rs, 1,73,251.20 and removed him from service with immediate effect. He filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, but he was directed to exhaust departmental remedy before filing appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. In compliance with the direction of the Tribunal he filed appeal before the respondent No, I, who rejected the same vide order dated 1st March, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the inquiry proceedings could not be conducted by the Authorised Officer. Thus the entire action against the appellant was vitiated being in utter disregard of the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the damage caused to the store of wheat was not due to the negligence of the appellant but the same had occurred due to heavy rainfall during the year 1976-77. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant kept on sending repeated requests to the higher authorities to take proper action at proper time but no response was made to his said requests. It has been argued that the appellant was not liable to account for any discrepancy in the stock due to the fact that the checking of the stores was taken in the absence of the appellant when he was under arrest and could not attend the duties.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Department and has submitted that undoubtedly there were heavy rains in the year 1976-77 but the wheat stocks stored by the appellant in Nazir Cotton Factory were damaged due to sheer negligence of the appellant who constantly remained absent from the centre and did take no care for the safety of precious stocks of Government. He has submitted that he never made any request to take proper step for the safeguard of the said stock. According to learned District Attorney the appellant was summoned on the complaint of the owner of Nazir Cotton Factory by the A. D. C. (G), Vehari on 20th August, 1978. As he was absent all the stock was damaged. He was arrested and a case F. I. R. No, 199 was registered against him. It has been stoutly resisted by the learned District Attorney the legal objection that the District Food Controller could not act as Authorised Officer and could not proceed departmentally against the appellant. He has relied on rule 6(3) of the E & D Rules, under which the District Food Controller/Authorised Officer was competent to proceed against the appellant without appointing the Enquiry Officer. According to the learned District Attorney it was evident on the face of the record that the appellant was guilty of negligence which had caused heavy financial loss to Government.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant remained continuously absent from duty and failed to protect precious Government stock from pilferage due to rains. It has also been submitted that he failed to produce relevant record of despatches and even be prepared the Stock Report after a period of 7 years and that too after great pursuasion. The above attitude of the appellant proves that he was the most irresponsible person and due to his negligence and irresponsibility Government had suffered a huge loss of Rs, 1,73,258.20.
8. I have also called upon the appellant to show whether he made any request to the Department for protection of stock which he has failed to show any such documentary evidence. The department has firmly denied that no such request was ever received by them. One who is conversant with the Food Department's Rules would know that the appellant was under obligation to fill Form S-1, if at all he found that the stock was being damaged due to heavy rains or other reasons beyond his control. Form S-1 is always sent in the circumstances and to fix the responsibility of such like shortage. In the present case no such form was ever filled/sent, therefore his plea that he was writing letters to the next higher authorities about the damages, is without any substance. It is also a fact which cannot be denied that the appellant remained absent from duty and it was only when a complaint was made by the owner of Nazir Cotton Factory that efforts were made to find him but to no effect.
9. With regard to The plea that District Food Controller Authorised Officer could not proceed against him under rule 6(3) of the E & D Rules, 1975, the stand taken by the appellant is untenable as it is defective, which lies with the Authority-cum-Authorised Officer to proceed against the delinquents by issuing a show-cause notice when it is evident against a civil servant that he is guilty of the charges. In this case there was hardly any need to initiate a regular enquiry as the shortage of the stock was sufficient to fix responsibility on the appellant alone who was Incharge of the said stock.
The Department had already given him maximum concession of 5% of shortage keeping in view the heavy rains which had occurred in the said year, more than that would be uncalled for and unjustified concessions.
10. In the light of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the two well-considered orders of respondents by which the appellant has been removed from service and has been directed to pay a sum of Rs, 1,73,258,20.
1l. The result is I dismiss the appeal as being without any force. There will be no order as to costs.