FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--Jamshed Ali, Foodgrain Inspector has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 17-3-1985 communicated vide Endst. dated 24-4-1985 of the Deputy Director, Food, Multan vide which the recovery of Rs,1,25,767.58 was imposed on Rao Jamshed Ali appellant as well as Muhammad Siddique, Foodgrain Supervisor and Rab Nawaz, Assistant Food Controller by the ratio of 3, 2 and 5 respectively. The appellant has impleaded the Deputy Director, Food, Multan Region and Director Food, Punjab as respondents.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the recovery of Rs,37,730 from the appellant be stopped.
3. Brief facts of the case are that during 1983-84 scheme a quantity of 8,268.218 M. Tons wheat was stored in open in Vehari P.R. Centre. The appellant Jamshed Ali as well as Rab Nawaz, A.F.C. and Muhammad Siddique, Foodgrain Supervisor handled the said stocks. On clearance of the stock a quantity of 78.252 and 6.342 M. Tons wheat was declared as damaged and short respectively. The District Food Controller, Vehari was asked to proceed against the said defaulting officials under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 in capacity of Authorised Officer. As such the DFC/Authorised Officer proceeded against the defaulting officials and submitted his findings vide Memo. dated 17-2-1985. The D.F.C. gave the findings that the damage was due to the rains and the entire loss to be written off. The Deputy Director, Food, called the defaulting officials namely the appellant Jamshed Ali as well as Rab Nawaz, A.F.C. and Muhammad Siddique, Supervisor. The Deputy Director, Food, gave a chance of personal hearing to the appellant Jasmshed Ali as well as the two remaining officials and after perusal of the record disagreed with the D.F.C. with the observations that if the defaulting officials had taken care and proper precautions the damage could have been averted. However, the Deputy Director Food wrote off the amount shown in the last column of the following statement:-- S. No. Mode of StorageQty. Found short/damaged (M.Tons)Value Amount Written off Rs. Rs. Rs.
1. Set No. 1 Ganji Plinth8.21 17,076.80 5,123,04
2. Set No. 1 Ganji Plinth18.742 38,983.36 10,000.00
3. No.2 7.268 15,117.54 4,535.23
4. No.3 3.131 6,512.48 1,953.74
5. No.4 1.53 3,182.40 954.72
6. Set No. 3 Ganji No. 112,238 25,455.04 10,000.00
7. No.2 21.262 44,224.96 10,000.00
8. No.3 5.557 11,558.56 3,467.57
9. No.4 6.656 13,844.48 4,153.34 and directed the recovery of the balance of the damaged wheat amounting to Rs,1,25,767.58 while holding the appellant and his colleagues negligent in performance of their duties. Ratio of the recovery was 3 for the appellant Jamshed Ali, 5 for Rab Nawaz, A.F.C. and 2 for Muhammad Siddique, Foodgrain Supervisor. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed appeal to the Director Food and since the appeal was not decided within 90 days, therefore, the appellant Jamshed Ali filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
4. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the shortage is for one year and the total quantity alleged to be damaged and short came to 0.98 % i,e, less than 1%.
The learned counsel for the appellant added that the damage and loss was due to natural calamity of rains because the stocks were lying in open and the loss of one per cent in such a situation was quite normal. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that in many cases the department has written off the loss to the extent of one per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while stating that the attitude of the respondent-department has been harsh and they have not given proper allowance to the appellant for remission of the loss due to passage of one year and the stock lying in form of Ganjies in the open and exposed to the rains.
5. Learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the impugned order of the Deputy Director, Food, was fully substantiated because the appellant and his two colleagues failed to take proper care and precautions regarding protection of the wheat stocked in the open. The learned Deputy District Attorney concluded his arguments while stating that the Deputy Director Food had written off substantial quantity of the wheat as shown in the statement of 9 Ganjies in the impugned order.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Attorney. We have also consulted the relevant record including the departmental comments. This may be stated that in the instant case the D.F.C./Authorised Officer vide his letter dated 17-2-1985 recommended the remission of the entire loss. In such a situation seemingly two options were available for the Deputy Director, Food, for the disagreement i,e, either to get a regular inquiry held to achieve the positive results for finding the extent of the fault of the appellant and in the alternative to give solid and cogent reasons of disagreement which is not the case. Besides that we find that the questioned loss is not only less than 1% which is normally remitted by the Food Authorities but the loss also occurred while the wheat was stocked in the open Ganjies. As such keeping in line with similar cases it would not be proper to make any departure in the case of the appellant.
7. Hence we are of the considered opinion that the case for the impugned recovery is not fully made out against the appellant and accordingly the appeal is accepted.
No order for the costs.