' Shabbir Ahmed, Food grains Inspector, P.R. Centre Israni, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region and Director Food Punjab as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. By virtue of this appeal Shabbir Ahmed has prayed that impugned order No, FE-PF/790, dated 21- 10-1985 passed by respondent No, 1 stopping one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, censuring him and withholding his pay during the suspension period may be set aside.
3. The facts of the case are that on 9-5-1985 the then Minister for Food Punjab paid a visit to P.R.
Centre Israni where the appellant was posted as Food grains Inspector and during the visit of the said Minister, someone claiming to be Muhammad Hashim son of Noor Muhammad complained to the Minister that the appellant was demanding from him illegal gratification for supplying "Bardana" and wanted him to pay in kind a percentage of wheat supplied by him to the P.R. Centre.
As a result of this complaint, the appellant and two other officials at the Centre were placed under suspension and vide his Office No, 332, dated 18-5-1985, the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region (Respondent No, 1) directed the District Food Controller, Bahawalpur (Authorised Officer) to proceed against the appellant and the other two co-accused in accordance with rules 6 and 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.Accordingly, show-cause notice dated 18-5-1985 was served on the appellant by District Food Controller, Bahawalpur, the substantive portion of which reads as follows:- "You are hereby called upon to explain your position in respect of the following:-- During the course of visit of Mehar Ghulam Destagir, Minister for Food, Punjab, Lahore at P.R. Centre, Israni on 9-5-1985 one Muhammad Hashim son of Noor Muhammad, Basti Malkan village Ichhrani, Tehsil Hasilpur complained to the Minister that you were demanding from him illegal gratification for supplying Bardana and also wanted him to pay in kind a percentage of wheat on the quantity of wheat supplied by him."
' The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 19-5-1985. However, the Authorised Officer did not serve any charge-sheet on the appellant on receipt of his explanation. Instead, the Authorised Officer assumed the role of Inquiry Officer and without serving any charge-sheet, recorded the statements of the appellant, Muhammad Hashim son of Noor Ahmed (alleged complainant) and Faiz Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad who had impersonated Hashim when he complained to the Minister on 9-5-1985.
' The Authorised Officer who had assumed the role of Inquiry Officer submitted his finding-cum- recommendation to the Authority on 25-5-1986 and the finding was that the appellant and other two accused were not at fault and they were not involved in the allegations made against them.
His recommendation was that all of them including the appellant should be released from suspension w,e,f, the date on which they were suspended.
' Vide his order No, FE-PF/790, dated 21-10-1985, the Authority (respondent No, 1) agreed with the recommendations of the Authorised Officer in respect of other two co-accused but disagreed with his recommendation regarding the appellant and imposed on him the penalties of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect and also censured him. In addition, he directed that the appellant should not be paid anything for the suspension period except what he had already drawn as subsistence allowance.
' The appellant filed an appeal before the Director Food, Punjab (respondent No, 2) on 16-11-1985.
However, no decision on the appeal was conveyed to him despite lapse of 90 days. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Attorney and have also perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following main points:-- (i)Muhammad Hashim who was alleged to have made the complaint to the Minister disowned the complaint in his statement recorded by the Authorised Officer on 25-5-1985. Similarly Faiz Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad in his statement recorded by the Authorised Officer admitted that he had made the complaint to the Minister in the name of Hashim. Thus the very basis of the charge leveled against the appellant in the show-cause notice is demolished.
(ii) In his impugned order dated 21-10-1985, respondent No, 1 disagreed with the Authorised Officer in the following words:- ' The failed to make payment to one Mr. Faiz Muhammad, Grower being the cost of 36 bags of wheat offered for purchase on 7-5-1985, on the plea that the said stocks were not seived/cleaned before its delivery."
"The plea of the official was incorrect as the wheat stocks were harvested through mechanized means as such there was no need of its sieving/cleaning. He is proved guilty for using delaying tactics for payment to the seller."
The observation of respondent No, 1 that the wheat stocks were harvested and did not require sieving/cleaning before delivery was against facts. No body not even Faiz Muhammad who impersonated him as Hashim (and made the complaint) deposed in his statement that wheat was harvested by mechanized means and did not require sieving/cleaning. On the other hand, after seeing the result of seiving, Faiz Muhammad admitted the shortage of about 2 bags and suggested to the appellant that bill for 34 bags instead of 36 bags tendered by him be prepared.
(iii) According to para. 6 of Wheat Procurement Policy for 1985-86 issued by the Food Department, the stocks tendered at the Purchase Centre should be free from dirt and dust and should be cleaned and sieved before they are accepted for purchase. A similar provision existed in the Wheat Procurement Policy 1983-84. Therefore, the appellant was under obligation to act in accordance with the Government instructions and the observations of respondent No, 1 are incorrect.
(iv) The observation of respondent No, 1 that the appellant used delaying tactics was also not based on facts. Faiz Muhammad brought his wheat to the P.R. Centre on 8-9-1985 and demanded that it should be purchased immediately. The appellant told him that it would be purchased after sieving and cleaning which was started on the morning of 9-5-1985 when the Minister visited the Centre. Therefore, there was no delay.
(v) The wheat tendered by Faiz Muhammad could not be sieved/cleaned immediately because sieving/cleaning of wheat tendered by others was in progress. According to Standing Instructions of the Food Department, the principle of "first come first served" had to be followed and other work could not be stopped to accommodate Faiz Muhammad who had come after others had tendered their stocks. This would have offended the other growers who had tendered their stocks earlier.
(vi) The Authorised Officer had completely exonerated the appellant of all blame and had recommended his reinstatement. However, the Authority (respondent No, 1) held the appellant guilty of allegations which were not included in the show-cause notice dated 18-5-1985. The punishment awarded to him was therefore illegal.
(vii) The appellant and two other officials of P.R. Centre were suspended and proceeded against under the orders of the then Minister for Food on a false complaint made under a false name which could not be established. The two other officials were exonerated by respondent No,
1. The Department therefore apprehended that acquittal of all the accused might offend the Minister.
Hence the appellant was penalized for no fault of his to show "Karwai" to the Minister.
6. The learned Deputy District Attorney adopted the written objections filed by the respondent No, 1 and submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and it may be dismissed.
7. On careful examination of the submissions made by both sides and the record of the case, I find that there is a lot of force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In this connection, attention is invited to the following points:-- #TBS (i) #TBE Muhammad Hashim in whose name the complaint was made to the Minister and who has been mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 18-5-1985 disowned the complaint as is clear from his statement before the Authorised Officer-cum-Inquiry Officer. Moreover, Faiz Muhammad who impersonated Hashim also admitted in his statement before the Authorised Officer that he made the complaint under the name of Hashim. Under the circumstances, the very basis of allegations contained in the show-cause notice against the appellant is demolished.
(ii) Respondent No, 1 has punished the appellant on the basis of allegations that stocks tendered by Faiz Muhammad had been harvested by mechanized means and did not require to be sieved/cleaned before delivery and therefore he was guilty of using delaying tactics in making payment to him. These allegations on the basis of which the appellant has been punished were not included in the show-cause notice dated 18-5-1985. Thus the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the allegations on the basis of which he was punished.
(iii) The assertion made by respondent No, 1 in his impugned order that the stocks tendered by Faiz Muhammad had been harvested by mechanized means and did not require to be sieved/cleaned and hence the appellant used delaying tactics is not supported either by evidence brought on record by the Authorised Officer-cum-Inquiry Officer or by the Standing Instructions on the subject issued by the Food Department.
' Para. 1 (iv) of Wheat Procurement Policy for 1983-84 issued by the Food Department of the Punjab Government, inter alia, directs as follows:-- "Dust free and clean wheat of fair average qualify shall be purchased. Wheat stocks not found up to the standard have to be cleaned and sieved by the tenderers before delivery."
' Similarly para. 11 of Wheat Procurement Policy 1983-84 issued by the Food Department clearly stipulates that "the principle of first come first served will be strictly followed." Therefore the appellant was justified in giving priority to growers who had tendered their stocks earlier.
(iv) Under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, if he Authorised Officer decides that it is necessary to have an enquiry conducted against the accused, he shall give him a reasonable opportunity to show cause. However, if under Rule 6(2) of the aforementioned rules, the Authorised Officer decides that an enquiry is necessary in the interest of justice, "he shall appoint" an Enquiry Officer or an Enquiry Committee.
' In this particular case the Authorised Officer did not appoint an Inquiry Officer under Rules 6(5) of P.C.S. (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and assumed the role of Inquiry Officer himself. Thus, the Authorised Officer violated the provisions of P.C.S. (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
(v) Under Rule 6(6) of P.C.S. (E & D) Rules, 1975, the Authorized Officer "shall simultaneously frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with a statement of allegations ' In this particular case, the Authorised Officer did not frame any charge-sheet. Instead he proceeded to record evidence himself as is evident from the record of the case. Further, the statements of witnesses on record show that no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross- examine the witnesses. Again the statement of Faiz Muhammad and the appellant was recorded in question and answer form.
8. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, I have come to the conclusion that the departmental proceedings against the appellant were not conducted in accordance with the rules, the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the allegations on the basis of which he was punished in the impugned order and the rules of natural justice were ignored. I therefore accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 21-10- 1985 passed by respondent No, 1.
' There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.