MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Jam Manzoor Ahmad, Food grains Inspector has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders date 26.12.1987 and 6.8.1988 passed by the respondents. The appellant has impleaded Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set-aside.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal -of this appeal are that during 1982- 83 scheme the appellant was posted at PR Centre Kot Samaba in District Rahimyar Khan. He purchased and stored 4412.560 tons wheat at the said centre. The stocks were stored in 34 'Gunjies'. On clearance of stocks there was storage loss of 327.712 tons wheat. The appellant was proceeded under the rules and respondent No.2 (Authority) written of the loss to the extent of Rs. 2,69,699.16 and imposed recovery of Rs. 3,41,084.64 upon the appellant for the remaining loss vide impugned order dated 26.12.1987.
Appellant preferred appeal before respondent No.1 which to has rejected vide impugned order dated 6.8,1988. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parlies at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the Department with care.
4. The main contention of the appellant's counsel is that the appellant has been saddled with the liability without any basis and whole proceedings are illegal. Conversely learned D.A- opposed the appeal and argued that impugned orders passed by the respondents in the light of comments/report be allowed to stand.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parlies and find that it is true that generally there were rains during 1982-83 and the stocks were in open but there is nothing on record submitted by the appellant to prove that there were really heavy rains at that particular center i.e. 63/P (Schja) and he really made all possible efforts to spray the stocks. It is also stated here that even for rains and natural calamities tarpaulins are provided and proper dunnage is done. If the appellant had availed of all these facilities properly and had he been more vigilant the losses would not have occurred. The appellant in the circumstances actually deserved more severe punishment than mere recovery. Moreover full justification was given for imposing the penalty and the Appellant Authority rightly rejected the appellant's departmental appeal. So far as long period of storage is concerned departmental concession has already been allowed. I also find that orders passed by respondents are quite legal, valid and in accordance with the law. The appellant was given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority and it is true that the Authority is not bound by the findings of the Authorised Officer. I also find that .The reference made to the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore was not an order and full justification was given for imposing the penalty as the loss was 7.36% of the stored stocks. Appellant has also failed to prove that he is innocent in the affairs- of the case and has been victimised by the Department. Consequently I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. As such the instant appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.