JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD MEHUD ASLAM PIRZADA CHAIRMAN).- Mushtaq Ahmad, Constable (Driver) of Police Telecommunication, has filed this appeal under section 4 Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the impleaded Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Inspector j General of Police Telecommunication, Lahore as respondents in this appeal.
Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 9-9- 1984 and 10- 7-1986 passed by the respondents be set aside and appellant be exonerated from the recovery of an amount of Rs.22081 /-.
2. The salient features of this appeal preferably are that the appellant caused substantial damage to a Government vehicle Isuzu (Truck No.LEJ-3721) through his carelessness and indifference as a result of which the engine of the vehicle was seized. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges. Respondent No.2 imposed penally of forfeiture of one year's approved service, and also ordered for the recovery of Rs.22081/- as a cost of spare parts and other likely repairs charges, by deduction from the appellant's pay Rs.200/- per month vide order dated 9-9-1984. Appeal on behalf of the appellant was filed before respondent No.i who set aside the penalty of forfeiture of approved service but ordered that the recovery of an amount of Rs.22081/- be recovered from him.
Hence this appeal.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the assistance of the representative of the Department,
4. During the course of arguments appellant's counsel raised ,thefollowing points:- a. that recovery cannot be imposed under the Punjab Police (E&D) RulcSiil975 because there is no such provision for this penalty. b. That as per report of committee constituted at the instance of respondent No.2, the appellant was not at fault and that engine was seized on account of mechanical defects.
5. Conversely, the learned, District Attorney has fully supported the case of respondent but failed to point out any provision warranting imposition of penalty of recovery. '
6. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions, made by learned counsel for the parties and IInd that there is no provision prescribed under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 which warrants the imposition of such like recovery stated above. Learned District Attorney tried to argue that even the provision of Police Rulese; can be borrowed but the same to cannot -be taken into consideration as the same have been scrapped with the enactment of Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. I have also gone' through the report of the Committee which also favours the case of the appellant.
From a careful perusal of the facts of this appeal. I am of 'this view that since there is no clear provision in law for the imposition of penally of recovery and the same cannot assumed by implications, therefore, the penally of recovery of an amount pf Rs.22081/- is illegal and cannot be allowed to stand.
7. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside and the appellant is exonerated from the recovery of the aforesaid amount..There will be no order as to cost.