Muhammad Sharif Kamyana, ex-Food Inspector, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service 7 Tribunals Act, 1974 against the orders, dated 1-10-1984 of the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan, vide which the appellant was dismissed from the service and beside that the penalty of Rs.21,11,653.47 was inflicted over the appellant and the orders, dated 16-11-1985 of the Director Food communicated on 16-12-1985, vide which the departmental appeal was dismissed.
The appellant has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region and Director Food, Punjab as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in the service and the orders of the recovery also to be withdrawn.
3.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted as follows: -
(1) You were posted at Pipli Wheat Purchase Centre, vide orders contained in Endst. No. 1484-1585, dated 18-4-1984 and where required to report for duty at new place of posting by 21-4-1984, but you did not join, you were again directed in the staff meeting held on 30-4-1984 to assume charge at Pipli Centre and start procurement of wheat with effect from 1-5-1984 but you did not care."
(2)You remained absent about upto 9-5-1984 and were asked to explain reasons, vide No. PE- 84/1990, dated 16-5-1984 but your reply is still awaited.
(3)You started purchase of wheat from 12-5-1984, instead of 1-5-1984 causing a setback in the procurement drive, resulting that only a little about 3,000 tons wheat has been purchased at Pipli against the target of 800 tons.
(4) You left the centre without permission and did not attend on 26, 27 and 28-5-1984. Mr. Zafar Iqbal was sent to do the procurement work at Pipli on these dates.
(5) You, once again, absented yourself from 29-5-1984, after signing blank GP-13 which were filled by Nazar Hussain, Chowkidar on 30-5-1984. You attended the centre sometime on the night of 30- 5-1984, and left after signing the purchase bills and blank GP-13 upto No.10 of Book No. 1039. GP-13 upto No.8 were filled and issued by the Foodgrains Supervisor or the Chowkidar, while Nos. 9 and 10 were still found blank but were bearing your signatures, and taken into possession by the undersigned on his visit to Pipli centre on 31-5-1984.
(6) You were withdrawn from Pipli centre and posted at Dokota Centre, vide order No. PE-84/2308- 11, dated 31-5-1984, but neither you handed over the charge of Pipli centre nor reported for duty at Dokota uptil now, and absenting yourself since 29-5-1984 without any intimation /application.
(7) You were asked to many times to attend P.R. Centres of Lahore to verify the shortage in connection of wheat stocks despatched by you from Dokota but you did not comply.
The appellant pleaded not guilty. Formal regular inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Food Controller and since all the charges were proved the D.F.C. In capacity of Authorised Officer submitted the recommendation and the record to the Deputy Director Food for imposition of the major penalty of the dismissal from service as well as the recovery of the Government loss. The Deputy Director Food gave the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and on examination of the relevant record and the Inquiry Report as well as the recommendations of the Authorised Officer the appellant was imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service as well as the recovery of the loss and damage caused to the Government Wheat Stock and the 3427 A-class MT Bags totalling Rs.21,11,653.47. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Director Food, vide his orders, dated 16-11-1985 communicated on 16- 12-1985 to the appellant. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that after completion of the inquiry the copy of the inquiry report was neither given by the Authorised Officer nor any show- cause notice was issued by him. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Mir Muhammad's case PLD 1981 SC 176. The learned counsel for the appellant added that after recommendation of the Authorised Officer and consideration of the inquiry report the appellant was dismissed by the Deputy Director Food but he too did not supply any copy of the inquiry report.
The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the letter, dated 1-9-1984 of the Deputy Director which is Annexure 'A' of the written objections of the Deputy Director (respondent No.1). In this letter the Deputy Director mentioned in the notice addressed to the appellant that he was sending copy of the report of the Authorised Officer but it does not mention any copy of the inquiry report.
5. Learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant did not raise the objection of not being supplied the " copy of the inquiry report in the departmental appeal. The learned Deputy District Attorney stated that the appellant also did not demand any copy of the inquiry report and it is presumed that either it was supplied to the appellant or he did not require it.
6. I have carefully considered the points yso raised by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney. I have also perused the relevant record including the departmental comments. Without prejudice to the merits of the case undisputedly the respondents as well as the Deputy District Attorney have failed to establish that any copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant by the Authorised Officer or by the Deputy Director Food or for that matter the Director Food. As already pointed out the letter, dated 1-9-1984 of the Deputy Director (Annexure 'A' of the written objections) indicates the supply of only the report of the Authorised Officer and it does not mention the supply of copy of the inquiry report. As such the requirement of the case of Mir Muhammad PLD 1981 SC 176 have not been complied with which is a material omission.
7. Hence, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded for the rectification of the mistake namely from the stage of supplying the copy to the appellant by the Authorised Officer with his notice to the appellant and then onwards. The appellant to be re- instated in service to clothe him with the status of a civil servant. The period of his absence would be determined by the Authority. The status quo to be maintained regarding proceedings of the recovery of the amount of Rs.21,11,653.47.
No order for the cost.
M.Y.H Appeal accepted.