' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The appellant was a Foodgrains Inspector and was at the relevant time posted at the Provincial Reserve Centre, Depalpur. There were allegations against him of misappropriation of wheat stocks, A class empty bags and tarpaulines and failure to submit the requisite reports. Consequently, he was suspended and a charge sheet was served upon him. After a regular enquiry the Deputy Director, Food, reinstated him in service but directed that a sum of Rs3,01,1733.30 should be recovered from him. This sum represented the loss suffered by the Government by his misconduct. From the order of the Deputy Director he preferred an appeal before the Director. During the course of the hearing of the appeal the Director took the view that the penalty awarded to him was entirely inadequate. Consequently, he served another notice upon him for the enhancement of the punishment. After hearing him, the Director dismissed him from service and also directed that apart from the sum which he had already been required to pay under the order of the Deputy Director, he should also deposit the price of the missing gunny bags and tarpaulines. From the order of the Director the appellant preferred an appeal before the Secretary in the Food Department, but, it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but that too failed. He has now come in appeal to this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are not persuaded that the order of his dismissal from service was not based on adequate grounds. Admittedly, as part of his duties, he was required to submit reports in SR-26 Form. It was not disputed by him before the departmental authorities that he had failed to do so. There was also an abnormal shortage of wheat stocks under his charge. He had also not accounted for all the A class empty bags and tarpaulines. In the circumstances, the order of dismissal from service passed against him did not suffer from any infirmity.
3. However, the direction given to the appellant by the departmental authorities for the payment of Rs3,01,173.30 needs further consideration. The shortage in the stocks under its charge has been worked out at 251.154 tonnes. The Enquiry Officer found that the wheat obtained by using thrasher contained sufficient moisture and that it generally lost weight with the passage of time.
Nevertheless, he did not care to work out how much of the shortage could have been attributed to the drying of the wheat. The Deputy Director also did not carry out this exercise. On the other hand, he calculated the liability of the appellant with reference to his own competence to write off the losses. This was clearly an erroneous approach. The appellant could be saddled with the loss which was due to his own negligence or malfeasance. In this context, the limits on the financial powers of the Deputy Director were entirely irrelevant. We therefore accept the appeal to the extent that the order for the recovery of the loss suffered by the Government on account of shortage of wheat is set aside. The department may, once again, work out the liability of the appellant for the shortage after notice to him. There will be no order as to costs.