JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.-Abdul Hameed, Forester has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 8.1.1986 and 13.1.1987 passed by respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively. Appellant has impleaded the Divisional Forest Officer, Sialkot and Conservater of Forests as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside and the panalties of recovery and censure be quashed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the show cause notice dated 2.11.1985 alongwith statement of allegations were issued by respondent No. 1 in which it was alleged as follows:- " Government Water Tanker No. STB-5221 was parked at Cawinda Road Forest Nursery. Seven tyres alongwith Rims were stolen on the night 3/4 April 1984. A case was got registered with the Police Station Zafarwal vide FIR No. 48/84 dated 4.4.1984. Range Officer Daska Range was appointed as Enquiry Officer to investigate the matter departmemtally. He submitted his enquiry report and held the staff guilty of the loss to the Government.
Your Mr. Abdul Hameed Forester were posted as Incharge of Cawinda Road side Nursery Block and it was your duty and responsibility to take proper care Of the Government property. The theft of 7 years and rims caused a loss of Rs. 22155/- to the Government. You are, therefore, alleged guilty of the charge of misconduct corruption and inefficiency within the meaning of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
3. Similarly show cause notice and statement of allegations were issued to Mohammaed Rafique Forest Guard as well as Manzoor Ahmad, Driver. Divisional Forest Officer Sialkot (Respondent No. 1) vide impugned order dated 8.1.1986 imposed the recovery of Rs. 7385/- upon each of two officials including the appellant. Besides this recovery penalty of censure was awarded to the appellant as well as Mohammad Rafique Guard and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon Manzoor Ahmad Driver. Appellant filed a departmental appeal dated 30.1.86 before Conservator of Forests -Lahore Circle Lahore (Respondent No. 2) and the same was also dismissed 1 M We impugned order dated 13.1.1987. Hence the present appeal. Ratio
4. We have heard-the learned counsel of-the safe at length andperused the record with the assistance of the department with care. a
5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that impugned order passed by the respondents deserve to be set aside and recovery waived of on the following grounds:-
(i) that in the circumstances of the case appellant was not at all responsible for the loss of tyres and rims of the said tanker.
(ii) that the appellant has been unnecessarily roped in the present case.
6. Learned District Attorney vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and reliance has been placed on the parawise comments filed by the respondents moved that the appeal be dismissed.
7. After having gone through the file on scrutiny of the record we find that it was the duty of the appellant to take proper care of the Government water tanker and he should have made adequate arrangements for safety of the water tanker when parked at forest .Misery in his block.
Registeration of a case with the Police Station was not sufficient. Mereover, the appellant reported the matter to the Police Station after an 'expiry of 18 to 20 hours which is the clear cut negligence of duty and voilation of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Howevtr, Government has suffered loss in the form of theft of tyres/rims due to appellant's inefficiency and negligence therefore, the appellant was rightly held responsible for the less sustained by the Government. We also find that on the failure of the investigation by the Investigation Officer the department was bound by law to initiate enquiry against the appellant and the Forest staff. The orders passed by the respondents are in accordance with the Rules and appellant including the filed staff were responsible to look after the Government property which was stolen due to their negligence. The appellant who was a Forester was responsible for the safe custody of Government property falling within his jurisdiction.
The enquiry proceedings were conducted by the enquiry officer. Thus we find that the charge levelled against the appellant stood proved from the record beyond any doubt. After having checked up the record we find no illegality or irregularity on the point of law or facts or any illegal exercise of the jurisdiction in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Mereover, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to pin point and establish any legal defect on the point of law or fact in the departmental proceedings undertaken by the respondents against the appellant.
Thus in the above stated circumstances the appeal has not merits and we find no cogent grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.