ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER).--Rana Saiful Jabbar, retired Assistant Food Controller, Multan has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1975 wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and the Director Food, Punjab, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 23-2-1985, 20- 7-1985 and 19-10-1985 be set aside and the recovery of Rs.58,279.48 inflicted upon the appellant be quashed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice (details are at Annexure "1") under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 with regard to the damage of wheat store in open as well as in House Type Godowns at Purchase Centre. Dunyapur, on 14-12-1983. The appellant submitted a detailed reply giving justification for the damage occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond human control. However, the appellant was retired under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants' Act, 1974 after completion of 25 years service. He proceeded on L.P.R. On 2-12-1983 for one year and stood retired on 1-12-1984 after the expiry of above leave. The District Food Controller, Multan submitted his recommendations to the respondent No.1 in the capacity of Authorised Officer, regarding the show-cause notice served upon the appellant, vide his letter dated 18-10-1984 in which he recommended that total damage be written of as the staff was not liable for the same. The Authorised Officer submitted further, recommendations on 16-12-1984 that shortage of 165.782 M.
Tons be written of keeping in view the fact that the period of storage in Godowns was 1 year 8 months and 15 days whereas in open it was 0 year 8 months and 11 days. It was also recommended by the Authorised Officer that the percentage is meagre i.e. 0.540% in case of open stock and 0.412% in case of Godowns. However, after retirement of the appellant, an order was passed by the authority (respondent No. 1), vide order, dated 12-2-1985, inflicting recovery of Rs.l 50,861.62 upon the appellant and his co-accused Rana Muhammad Hanif, Foodgrains Supervisor in the ratio of 60:40 respectively. In this way the appellant was imposed recovery of Rs.90,516.77 and was directed to deposit the recovery into Government Treasury, vide order, dated 23-2-1985 of the District Food Controller, Multan. The appellant made an appeal to the District Food Punjab, Lahore which was partially accepted and another order, dated 19-10-1985 was passed by the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan wherein the recovery was reduced to Rs.58,279.48 in the case of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G.
Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the overall percentage of shortage which had been attributed to the appellant was 0.540% in the case of open stock and 0.412% in the case of Godowns. This is a very meagre shortage and this Tribunal has already allowed 1% shortage in such cases as a normal admissible shortage. Hence, the respondents should have allowed this shortage to the appellant which was normal and genuine one. He has also referred to the recommendations of the Authorised Officer wherein he had clearly made his recommendations that the shortage had occurred due to the fact that the stock remained in open in Ganjis and was effected due to dampness. The stock in Godowns were also affected by the moisture due to newly-built godowns. Thus, the loss was unavoidable and beyond human control.
The learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that the recommendations of the Authorised Officer were not accepted by the authority in toto and part concession has only been allowed to the appellant by the Authority without justification and merits.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments submitted by the respondents in extenso and has submitted that already respondents have taken a lenient view and the admissible shortage/loss has been allowed to the appellant and only such recovery has been imposed upon the appellant which he could not justify. Thus, the impugned orders are valid orders and no exception can be taken against the same.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the recommendations of the District Food Controller, Multan/Authorised Officer made to the Authority which are reproduced as follows: The Authorised Officer has completely exonerated the appellant from the loss/shortage so found in the stores in his charge. It is also worth mentioning that the percentage of shortage is 0.540% in case of open stock and 0.412 % in the case of Godowns, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments. This Tribunal hash, already decided a Case No. 707/411 of 1985, in case of Rao Jamshid Ali, Foodgrain Inspector v. Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region, Multan and the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, decided on 27-5-19861 and in similar circumstances it has been held that shortage upto 1% is; quite normal and so in this judgment, a concession for loss'' shortage upto 1% was allowed to Rao Jamshid Ali, appellant. In the similar circumstances, in the case of the present appellant, shortage is much less than 1% as it is 0.540% in case of open stocks and 0.412% in case of Godowns. Hence, the shortage/loss imposed upon the appellant is within the range of normal limit.
8. Resultantly the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside.
There is no order as to costs.
M.Y.H Appeal accepted