JUDGMENT ''" MOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).- Sana Ullah, Ex-Foodgrains Inspector, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 2.6.1986 and 1.8.1987, whereby he was dismissed from service and recovery of loss was ordered. He has impleaded Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Director Food.
Faisalabad and District Food Controller, Jhang, as respondents. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders of respondents be set aside and he be reinstated in service.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted at Flag Centre, Aminpur during 1985-86, where reports of serious irregularities against him were received by the respondents. The appellant was served with a charge sheet containing the following charges:-
1. That he did not purchase a single grain of wheat at wheat purchasing centre, Aminpur from 17.6.1985 to 29.6.1985 which revealed that he did not remain present.
2. Malik Mahboob Asghar,. Assistant Food Controller was deputed to carry out physical verification of his centre on 30.6.1985. According to h s report he went there on 3rd and 5th August, 1985 for the purpose but he was found absent as a result the needful could not be done. He also failed to produce relevant record before the said Assistant Food Controller for physical verification, lt was therefore presumed that his record was in-complete.
3. On checking his Inventory statement for the month of July, 1985 and other relevant documents it transpired that 13594 A Class gunny bags were outstanding against him.
4. According to slock report No.39/1454 dated 31.7.1985 he purchased 6,363.356 tons (67272 bags) of wheat whereas receipient centre viz Chak No.11 showed total receipt from Aminpur as 6,335.331 tons. There being a difference of 28.025 tons (295 bags) which appeared to have been mis- appropriated by him with malafide intention.
5. He was found absent from the place of posting on 24.6.1985 at the the of visit of the worthy Deputy Director Food, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad which he was required to explain in this respect vide this office memo:No.EB\PF\85\5390 dated 7.7.1985 but he did not reply.
6. He was found absent from the centre on 3rd and 5th July, 1985 at thethe of physical verification to be carried out by Malik Mehboob Asghar, Assistant Food Controller, Garh More
7. A Special Messanger was detailed to call him to Saddar office Jhang with record for production before the Chief Minister, Inspection Team on 6.8.1985 but he was not available at the centre.
8. He attended the office on 11.8.1985 and was directed to remain present in the Saddar Office, Jhang and mark his attendance in the attendance Register daily with effect from 11.8.1985. He was also directed to produce the record for audit. After marking presence in the attendance register on 11.8.1985 he went away with the promise to bring the record on next day. But he did not turn up on 12.8.1985. He was again sent for through Special Messanger as the record was also required to be produced before the Chief Minister's Inspection Team at Lahore on 13.8.1985 but he was not available. Since 12.8.1985 he continuously remained absent. II. Neither produced the required record nor attended District Food Controller's Office.
9) That according to the report of Local Audit Team dated 29.8.1985 he mis- appropriated/embazzled a further quantity of 56,488 tons of wheat. Thus the total quantity of wheat emba/./Ied by him came to 84.513 (28.025 + 56.488) valuing Rs.2,02,831.00.
10. That he mis-approprialed/embazaled 13594 A Class bags valuing Rs.2,71,880.00.
After giving personal hearing to the appellant the authority held that all the charges against him were proved except that instead of 13594 A Class bags, 5735 bags were recovered leaving a balance of 7859 A Class bags still recoverable from him. The appellant was accordingly dismissed from service and was debarred from future employment of Government/Semi-Government and an amount of Rs.3,70,031.00 on account of Government loss was ordered to be recovered from him vide order dated 2.6.1986 by respondent No.2. The appellant filed appeal before respondent No.1, which was rejected by him vide his order dated 1.8.1987. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record with care.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the proceedings against the appellant were conducted in utter disregard and violation of rules of natural justice. The learned District Attorney fully opposed the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the charges for gross loss of Rs.3,70,031/- and others have been fully proved as such the punishment so awarded by respondents may be maintained.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions made by the parties and find that the plea of the appellant that the proceedings conducted against him were at his back and he was never associated with the same because he was in Police custody from 19.9.1985 to 29.9.1985, is completely false and an after-thought. We arc further strengthened in our view by the material evidence placed on record that the appellant was arrested on 18.11.1985 in the criminal case registered against him. The plea of all-bi is without footing and in no case support the case of the appellant. The proceedings conducted against the appellant were not ex-parte but he was given full opportunity to defend his case. The charges against the appellant stand fully proved and we find no irregularity or anomaly in the impugned orders so passed by the respondents.
6. As regards the charge of mis-approprialion of substantial quantity of wheat against the appellant, we have gone through the impugned orders as well as record so produced before us and see no reason to differ with the well considered orders of the respondents whereby the charge of mis-appropriation of Government Wheat was fully established against the appellant. We are hardly impressed by the plea of the appellant that en-route shortage could be recovered from the Contractor, as the facts and circumstances speak volume against him.
7. In the light of the above discussion we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.