MOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Muhammad Aslam Khan Sub Engineer, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 against the impugned orders dated 11-12- 1986 and 30-12-1987 passed by the respondents. The appellant has impleaded Chief Engineer, Irrigation Bahawalpur, Superintending Engineer, Bahawalpur Circle, Bahawalpur and Senior Most Staff Officer Office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur as respondents. By virtue- of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside.
2. Brief facts of this case are that Superintending Engineer, Bahawalpur Circle was directed to proceed against the appellant on account of shortage of pitching stone worth Rs.428916/-. The appellant was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations by the authorised officer.
The authorized officer appointed Shafi Ahmad Jam, S.D.O. Sahiwal Sub Division to probe into the matter. Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry submitted the enquiry report to the authorized officer.
The appellant was heard in person by the authorized officer. The appellant could not satisfy him.
Thereafter the case was submitted by the authorized officer to the authority but the same was returned to the authorized officer with certain observations for re-examination of the case. The authorized officer after doing the needful sent the case to the authority recommending that recovery of Rs.2,14,458/- be made from the appellant. Thereafter, the authority after hearing the appellant and going through the whole case- ordered for the recovery of Rs.2,14,458/- from the appellant.
3. The appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 who after hearing the appellant in person rejected the same vide order dated 30-12-1987. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record minutely with the assistance of the representative of the department with care.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the report of enquiry officer the appellant was responsible for excess payment of Rs.18,586/- while the respondent No.3 has imposed recovery of Rs.2,14458/- and the appellate authority in its appellate order has mentioned the amount of Rs.4,26,916/-. Further he argued that the respondents are not sure about the exact amount of recovery, but they have just worked out the amount without any basis. The learned D.A. With the assistance of Mr. R.B. Parwaz, XEN, Panjnad Division vehementaly opposed the instant appeal and contended that the same is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:- a) In all head works of river works in the Punjab there is no such example that the stone was itself converted into spawl. b) Sub Engineer checked his stock twice in a year and S.D.O, incharge once in a year. They report the variation to higher officer. There is no such report on record which indicated the conversion of stone into spawl. c) Sub Divisional Officer Panjnad Sub Dn. Checked the stock in question on 30-11-1980 and found no variation in the quantity of spawl. d) The work was allotted to the contractor on composite rates. There was no provision in the agreement for issuing spawl from stock. Hence issue is not justified. e) The Sub Engineer (appellant) remained incharg of the Section from 7- 3-1979 to 2-12-1981. He showed this variation of converting stone into spawl only on the day of handing over. f) The Sub Engineer(Appellant) remained incharge of this section and other sections of sub Dn.
From 15-5-1974 to 13-7-1977 and again from 1-1-1986 to 7-12-1987 in addition to period under dispute but during these tenures he did not convert any stone into spawl. g) Stock Register shows that entry of stone and spawl was scored out and a new stock register was opened to show the issue of spawl during the incumbancy of Faqir Hussain Sub Engineer, it was fictitious stock adjustment done by Faqir Hussain, Sub Engineer in connivance with appellant.
I have heard the parties and their learned counsel at length and perused all relevant record. I find much force in the counter arguments advanced by the learned DA. On behalf of respondents as reproduced above which are borne out from the relevant record. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant during the arguments has failed to pin point and establish any discrepancy of facts or of law in: he impugned orders passed by the respondents. As such I find that impugned orders passed by the respondents are un-exceptionable either on facts or on law. Further, more the charge for which appellant was penalized by the respondents stands fully proved against the appellant from the material on record and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the same by any oral or documentary evidence.
Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Copies of the signed judgment be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.