The appellant, Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah, ex-Foodgrain Inspector now the Foodgrain Supervisor has filed this appeal against the impugned orders, dated 21-1-1980 of the Deputy Director Food vide which the penalty of Rs.59,950 was imposed over the appellant for the godown storage loss of the wheat under the control of the appellant and the orders dated 26-10-1985 of the Director Food as a result of departmental appeal filed by the appellant vide which the recoverable amount from Rs.59,950 was reduced to Rs.46,092. The appellant impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Multan Ragion and the Director Food Punjab as respondents Nos. l and 2 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued the following show-cause notice by the Deputy Director Food vide his order, dated 27-6-1978:-- "As a result of thorough scrutiny of record you have been found guilty for the loss of 53,300 kilograms in Indg. Wheat/ Imported wheat/Sugar/Rice pertaining to 1976-77 Scheme at P.R. Centre Pattal Mauda District Muzaffargarh.
It has provisionally been decided to recover the loss from you in full thus sustained by the Government due to your negligence.
You are, therefore, required under the Pakistan Government Servants E&D Rules, 1975 (and adopted by the Government of the Punjab) to show cause in writing as to why the loss of Rs.60,762 should not be recovered from you. Should you fail in submitting your reply within 14 days it shall be presumed that you have nothing to offer in your defence and in that case ex parte decision whatsoever shall be taken.
You are hereby also afforded an opportunity to be heard in person on 15-7-1978 as required under the rules.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the alleged shortage of wheat stock occurred in the Scheme of 1976-77. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the shortage in the one House-type Godown No. 1 was 1.08$ involving storage period of 10 months, while in the House-type Godown No.2 with storage period of 9 months the shortage was 2.08%. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant in reply to the show- cause notice had explained that wheat was purchased in wet condition and after heating during the storage the stock was infested with Khapra and 'SUSRI'. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the Martial Law Team constituted for assessment of the damage in the various stock of the wheat of the District recommended the remission of the loss to the extent of 2$. The learned counsel-for the appellant stressed that the appellant had asked for disposal of the wheat but this was not removed and as such the appellant was not responsible for the loss. Besides that the Deputy Director Food while remitting Rs.1,000 loss had not shown reasons of remission. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while relying the cases as under:
(a) 1983 PLC 1962.
(b) Deputy Director Food Judgment, dated 3-2-1986 in another case of appellant, Mazhar Hussain Shah.
(c) The appeal case of Muhammad Ibrahim Dasti decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal on 5-5- 1986.
5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant concern the wheat stock is open in the form of pyramids or "ganjis" and besides unlike the nominal period of storage concerning the appellant, the storage period in the cited cases was 2 to 3 years. The learned Deputy District Attorney added that the appellant had stocked the wheat in the House--type godown and the plea of being effected by rains was flimsy. The learned Deputy District Attorney further stated that the wheat is purchased without moisture and the appellant has not been able to show any office reference that he was made to purchase the wheat in wet condition, and therefore, this plea has no basis for purchasing moisture wheat. The learned Deputy District Attorney stressed that the period of storage as mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant was only 10 months in Godown No. 1 and 9 months in Godown No.2 and as such the plea of non disposal of the wheat has got no bearing in the case. The learned Deputy District Attorney urged that the infestation excuse is also not sound because the appellant is duty bound to fumigate the wheat stock against the expected infestation.
The learned Deputy District Attorney cited the case of Muhammad Farooq in appeal Case No----- ------dated---------decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal in which even for the loss of the wheat upto 1% the appellant was held responsible.
6. I have carefully considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Attorney. I have also perused the relevant record and written objections of thee respondents Department. Undisputedly in the instant case the appellant was found responsible for the damage loss of the wheat concerning House-type godowns. Obviously the plea of the appellant that the damager was caused by the rains is not substantiated. This is also on the record as well as conceded by the appellant that the storage period of this case regarding House- type Godown No.1 was 10 months and storage period for House-type Godown No.2 was 9 months.
Obviously the storage period was normal and nominal and non-disposal of the wheat for this period has not sound preposition because it would defest the very purpose for which the House- type Godowns are constructed if it cannot properly store and secure the wheat for the normal period, there would be waste of the funds for construction of such godowns. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant also pertain to the wheat stock in the form of pyramids or ganjis and not the House-type Godowns. This may also be stated that almost in some cases concerning Multan Division in particular and Bahawalpur Division in general the plea of damage due to rains fall is raised by the appellants in spite of the fact that incidents of the rains fall is predominant in Lahore. Gujranwala and Rawalpindi Divisions and also comparatively more in remaining Divisions, Faisalabad and Sargodha. Besides that it is cryptic that even in cases of Multan Division and for that matter the instant case of the appeal the House-type Godown of other centres around the centres under the control of the appellant should be uneffected by the rains fall as well as infestation but only the appellant should be effected and that too out of proportion. The cases cited by the learned Deputy District Attorney is also quite relevant to the instant appeal.
7. Hence I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, to give some relief to the appellant the recovery of the penalty should be made in 3 monthly instalments commencing from 1-8-1986 followed by 1-9-1986 and 1-10-1986. If the recoverable amount is; not paid by the appellant the Department would be at liberty to proceed against the appellant for invoking coercive method for getting the arrears recovered through the District Collector as arrears of land revenue etc. Before concluding I may observe that only the recovery has been imposed over the appellant for causing loss to the Department but his service has not been touched through any order of dismissal, removal from the service reversion or stoppage of increments for his alleged misconduct and inefficiency. As such he has already been leniently dealt with.
There are no orders as to costs.
A.A.