S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, Foodgrains Inspector, office of Rationing Controller, Multan, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and Tehsildar (Recovery) Directorate of Food Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 7-3-1983, 20-4-1983 and 20-7-1985, passed by the respondents be set aside and appeal be accepted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Foodgrains Inspector at Karor Lal Essan in the year 1979-80. During his posting there, he purchased a quantity of 4087.185 M. Tons wheat and stocked in open as no Government owned storage accommodation was available there. During that period, heavy rains and storms were in abundance. The appellant had been sending reports to his superiors in the prescribed Form S/1, copy placed at Annexure/I. During the year 1979-80, due to heavy rains, wheat stock in Muzaffargarh District were heavily damaged. Ch. Muhammad Khalil Bhatti, the then Deputy Director Food, Multan, held the enquiry into the matter and investigated in respect of 14 purchase centres of Muzaffargarh District where 14 officials were working. He found that the appellant was not at fault, and held that the loss so caused by rains be written of being beyond the control of the official as under: "Rana Mushtaq Ahmad, Foodgrains Inspector, was posted at the Centre during the scheme 1979-
80. He purchased 4087 M. Tons wheat. Out of which 25.064 tons wheat shown as storage shortage and 38.0 tons as damaged. As the losses are less than one per cent each and, therefore, may kindly be written of being beyond the control of the official as under:-
(1) Storage shortage25.064 Tons Rs.31,330.00
(2) Damage38.0Rs.47,500.00 However, after a lapse of two years Mian Khuda Bakhsh, Deputy Director Food, Multan, re-opened the matter suo Motu and held the appellant guilty. The matter was put up before the Director Food Punjab, who allowed a relief of one per cent to the appellant subject to the maximum of Rs.10,000/- in each godown, and enhanced the amount of penalty already levied by the respondent No.2 from Rs.28,636.50 to Rs.43,350.00. The appellant filed review petition Annexure IV before respondent No.1, but the same "did not find favour and stood rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no godown was provided and the wheat was stored under the open sky on naked floors for a period of 3 to 8 months. No dunnage was provided by the Department nor any disposal was arranged. He has further submitted that the stocks were not subjected to fumigation as these were under the open sky, and were exposed to rains and weather risks. He has vehemently argued that the appellant could not be considered at fault, as he had been submitting reports to his immediate superior for the clearance of stocks in time, but no heed was paid to it. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied on the verdict of Muhammad Khalil Bhatti, dated 27-1-1981, who was Deputy Director Food, Multan, and himself submitted that after the appellant has been exonerated by the said authority Mian Khuda Bakhsh, Deputy Director Food, his successor has no locus standi to reopen the case suo Motu as no powers were available to him in this respect.
On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has supported the decision of successor of Muhammad Khalil Bhatti by submitting that whatever may be the earlier verdict, the latest verdict should stand undisturbed.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the observation of Muhammad Khalil Bhatti, Deputy Director Food, Multan, at the relevant time viz. "As the losses are less than one per cent each and, therefore, may kindly be written of being beyond the control of the official" was in detail and justified. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the officer who was close to the events, could not be allowed to be by-passed by his successor, who came into picture after a lapse of two years, when everything had been completed and done.
We hardly find any justification for him to reopen the matter suo motu and start enquiry once his predecessor had exonerated the appellant in unequivocal terms. It will be useful to mention at this stage that the earlier recovery so imposed by the said Ch. Muhammad Khalil Bhatti, Deputy Director Food, Multan, had already been paid by the appellant and further enhancement by the successor of the Deputy Director Food is neither just nor in accordance with the facts on record.
The earlier decision of the Deputy Director Food. Seems' quite fair as it is on record that the appellant has been, from time to time, apprising the authority about the deteriorating condition of the stock which was in the open sky, but the record of this case shows that no heed was paid and stocks were left at the mercy of the weather.
8. In view of the above we do not find any justification for the impugned order passed by Mian Khuda Bakhsh, dated 7-3-1983, and maintain the earlier order of Ch. Muhammad Khalil Bhatti, Deputy Director Food, Multan, dated 28-1-1981, and accept the appeal. The recovery so imposed by impugned orders dated 7-3-1983, 20-4-1983 and 20-7-1985 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H./111/Sr.P