' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---All these appeals by civil servants of the Provincial Food Department have come up for disposal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
2. The questions of law taken note of in the leave granting orders are as hereunder:-
(1) Whether in the absence of a positive finding of negligence. Or acting in breach of any orders, in terms of Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplince) Rules, 1975 against the concerned appellants an order directing recovery of the loss could be passed at all against them?
(2) Whether the competent authority was justified in ignoring the fact. Finding enquiry result and in substituting it by a general subjective order relatable not to the facts of the case-but to the financial powers of the competent authority itself?
3. The procurement of wheat was made according to the declared policy of the Government notified for each year. In the appeals before us, the procurement Policies of 1981-82 and 1986-87 are under consideration. The amount of wheat procured during the season far exceeded the storage capacity of the Department. The result was that there was three distinct types of storage accommodations made available for the procured wheat.
' The first and the best category was of the Pacca construction utilized for storing the wheat. The storage conditions were good. The stored commodities remained by and large protected. The loss was minimum.
' The second category, less satisfactory, was of storing the procured wheat in gangies and leaving it at various spots like the platform of the Railway Stations, open godowns and other covered areas where it was open place except for protection from sun and rain.
' The third category was of storage in gangies out in the open, under blue sky on the raised platform to protect it from ground water and a tarpaulin cover and nothing else.
4. After the wheat had been stored in such conditions for a period between one year to two years and unsatisfactory condition of storage and the damage on account of the elements was reported by the Officers who are now being punished, the entire stock was sieved, standardized and shortage was reported. In arriving at the figure of shortage, the damaged wheat and the residue material, which all was a part of the procured wheat to begin with, was counted as shortage. In other words, the gross shortage was taken to be the shortage and, not the net shortage i.e,, after excluding the damaged wheat and the residue material that was recovered from the wheat bags.
5. An enquiry was conducted under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
' It was a fact-finding enquiry which went into various aspects of the storage condition, the grievance made from time to time by the appellants and other responsible for storing the wheat and found good justification for allowing substantial relief to the appellants. The competent authority did not accept the fact-finding report of the Enquiry Officer and substituted it by its own decision. Its decision was not relatable to the individual cases but to general principles.
' The first principle that the competent authority adopted was that it allowed maximum relief in each case to the extent of its own financial powers in the matter of writing off the losses. Its power extended to Rs,10,000 in each case and the same was fully utilized and benefit given in every case to the concerned officers.
' The second principle adopted was that the shortage was taken to be gross shortage treating the damaged wheal recovered and the residue also as shortage.
Thirdly, the officials concerned were made responsible financially for the losses and this amount varies from individual to individual but is substantial.
6. It was in this background that the law points of public importance noted in the leave granting orders have come up for consideration.
7. In the first place, the competent authority, by allowing relief to the appellants to the maximum limit of its financial power, conceded that the blame was not entirely of the appellants. In apportioning the extent of blame, its own financial powers and the limits thereof could not be the criteria. It had to be objectively determined as to what extent the appellants were not responsible for the extremely unsatisfactory storage conditions and in the context of that finding, it would have been for the competent authority, as a consequential step, to move the Government for writing off the loss for which the appellants were not responsible, if such losses happened to be beyond the financial powers of the competent authority exercising the power instead limiting the relief to the extent of financial powers. In the act of the competent authority of allowing maximum relief to the appellants to the extent of its own financial power, we read in the Order a recognition of the fact that each of the appellants deserved greater concession which was denied simply because the competent authority was not possessed of the financial power to write off beyond that amount.
The alternative was there and the competent authority could have moved the authority which had unlimited powers to write off the loss where damage was not attributable to the negligence and to the improper performance of the duties by the appellants. There was no reason given why the later course was not adopted.
8. The other principle adopted by the competent authority for making the appellants responsible is also defective. The gross shortage could not be taken to be shortage. If the same procured wheat is sieved and standardized after a year, there would necessarily be damage, loss of moister etc. And that must be accounted for by reference to the period of storage and the conditions in which the wheat was stored. In this case, not the gross shortage but the net shortage at best could be attributable to the appellants, unless the finding recorded was that the damaged wheat or the residue material was mixed up in the stored wheat in substitution of what.Was removed from the store. There is no indication on the record that such was the allegation or the finding. Therefore, it would not be gross shortage for which the appellants could be accountable but the net shortage.
9. Thirdly, the Enquiry Officer had conducted a fact-finding enquiry into the conditions of storage and the nature of the duties performed by the appellants in looking after the stored wheat. It had apportioned the responsibilities accordingly. It appears on paper to be an objective report. It is not disputed by anybody as to the powers of the competent authority to form opinion different from that of the Enquiry Officer with regard to involvement of the appellants. But that has to be done on some well-founded principle or fact. None has been disclosed in the Orders of the competent authority and whatever appears is not a rational yardstick in apportioning the responsibility of the appellants.
9. In the circumstances, we accept all the appeals, set aside the orders/judgments of the Service Tribunal and remand the proceedings to the competent authority to have a second and proper look at the report of the Enquiry Officer and determine the liability of the appellants in accordance with law. No order is made as to costs.