' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER).-- Sajjad Ahmad Khan, Ex-Drilling Supervisor, Agricultural Engineering, Sargodha has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director, Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad and the Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering, Sargodha as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 9-2-1983 and 6-12-1983 of respondents Nos,2 and 1, respectively be set aside and the appellant be ordered to b reinstated with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working a Drilling Supervisor, Sargodha. The appellant was charge-sheeted b the Director of Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad (details at annexure 'A'). The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet (Details at annexure 'B'). The appellant was suspended by respondent No,2 vide his order, dated 8-8-1982. A regular enquiry was also conducted. On receipt of the enquiry report and consideration of the case of the appellant, the Authorised Officer recommended removal from service besides recovery of Rs, 9,875.82. The authority (respondent No,2) after due consideration of the case and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, removed the appellant from service alongwith recovery of Government dues amounting to Rs, 9,875.82 vide his order, dated 9-2-1983. The appellant made a representation to the respondent No, 1 against the above order but the representation was rejected vide his order, dated 6-12-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e, Ch. Sanaullah Bajwa, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been punished for the misuse of Drilling/Boring Plant of 10" dia and 8" dia without any guilt as the said plants were misused by Hassan Raza, Driller Hand without the knowledge of the appellant and the appellant has been made scapegoat for the act of this Driller Hand and has been punished arbitrarily without his fault. Regarding other charges of shortage of lining pipe, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been made responsible for shortage of 37'-7" of 6" dia lining pipes which were not physically checked in appellant's presence and he has also been arbitrarily held responsible for the same as the physical verification was carried out at his back which was not correct and vague. Similarly the appellant has been made responsible for 62 feet 8 inches lining pipes of 5" dia, against the gate passes said to have been issued by the appellant is against the facts and the charge is baseless. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment awarded to the appellant is arbitrary and unlawful.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney assisted with the representative of the Department has produced tour diary of the appellant for the month of June, 1982 (put on record as annexure D/1) to show that the appellant had visited the site of 10" bore/drilling in hand on 8-6-1982 at Noorpur Thal. Again he visited this drilling operation on 15-6-1982. Similarly he visited the drilling in hand of 8" dia plant on 28-6-1982 at Bhera. These both drillings were being carried out by Hassan Raza Shah, Driller Hand, the co-accused. Thus, it is not a fact that these drillings were done by the drilling hand at his own, without the knowledge of the appellant. Hence, these charges stand proved from the record maintained by the appellant himself. As far as shortage of pipes of 6" and 5" dia, it has been submitted by the learned Deputy District Attorney that shortage of 37 feet 7" of 6" dia lining pipes was detected by the Store Verifier (a responsible Officer) of the Department independently after physical verification of the stock of the appellant and due checking of the record maintained by the appellant. As far as other shortage of 5" dia lining pipes of 62 feet 8" is concerned, it is estbalished on the record that the appellant had issued bogus Gate Passes No, 63/30, 67/30 and 80/30 without depositing cost thereof. This charge is also fully proved from the record maintained by the appellant. It has been pointed out by the learned Deputy District Attorney that an independent enquiry was also held and all these charges were fully proved by the Enquiry Officer. Thus the impugned orders have been passed correctly, after the charges were proved against the appellant, are lawful and no exception can be taken against these.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case very carefully. The appellant/appellant's counsel has denied that the appellant was responsible for the misuse of Drilling/Boring Plant of 10" dia at Nurpur Thal and 8" dia at Bhera because this was done by Hassan Raza Shah, Driller Hand at his own instance, without knowledge of the appellant and the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same. It is a hard fact that the appellant was incharge of the Drilling plants in his area and he was responsible for proper hire, use of the drilling plants under his supervision according to the Departmental Rules and Regulations. It is not convincing that Drilling Plant of 10" dia and 8" dia consisting of huge enquipment with drilling accessories, could be misused in his area without his knowledge or connivance. The respondents have produced tour diary of the appellant for the month of June, 1982 (put up on record as D/1) wherein the appellant has himself mentioned in his tour diary that he had visited 10" drilling/boring on 8-6-1982 and 15-6-1982, the boring being carried out by Hassan Raza Shah, Driller Hand, at Noorpur Thal. He has also mentioned in the same tour diary that on 28- 6-1982, he visited 8" boring being done by the same Driller at Bhera. Thus the plea of the appellant/appellant's counsel that the drilling plants were misused by the driller hand without knowledge of the appellant, is baseless and without any foundation. Both the drillings were carried out with the knowledge, consent and connivance of the appellant for ulterior motives. As regards the charges No,3 and 4 regarding shortage of lining pipes of 6" and 5" dia these have also been proved fully from the record and documents maintained by the appellant and he cannot be absolved from these charges as well. The enquiry officer has also fully established these charges/ allegations against the appellant. Hence, we hold that the impugned orders are correct, valid and lawful orders and no exception can be taken against the same.
8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.