ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---During the 1982-83 wheat procurement scheme the appellants Hussain Bakhsh, Foodgrains Inspector and Asad Ullah Khan, Food grains Supervisor were posted at PR Centre Chak No.64/NP in Rahimyar Khan District. They jointly purchased 2872.610 M. Tons of wheat locally and also received a quantity of 4809.850 M. Tons from some other flag centre which brought the total of the wheat stored at the said Centre to 7682.460 M. Tons. As no covered shortage accommodation was available at the Centre all the above wheat was stored in the open in the shape of ganjies. On final clearance a storage loss of 746.705 M. Tons was declared.
2. On the direction of the Authority/Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur the Authorised Officer/District Food Controller, Rahimyar Khan conducted departmental proceedings against the appellants under rule 6.3 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and concluded that the officials had "tried to save the stocks from the losses but due to the climatical effects the stocks were damaged and found short having no allocation in time" and recommended that "a reasonable loss within the competence in each unit may kindly be written off'. The Authority imposed the recovery of Rs.10,22,172.92 on the accused civil servants after giving them the maximum rebate. The appeal filed by them before the Director Food was accepted and the case was remanded for fresh decision with the following observations: "Recovery under Efficiency and Discipline Mules can be imposed where the loss is caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. Nowhere in the proceedings it has been clearly concluded that the loss was the result of negligence or breach of any orders. In fact, the Authorised Officer and the Authority have both given the unmistakable impression that the loss was due to factors beyond the control of the appellants."
3. It was further observed that the provisions of the E&D Rules had not properly been followed in the case inasmuch as the Authorised Officer had failed to appoint an Enquiry Officer to look into the circumstances which led to the losses in question. Accordingly, a fresh enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Officer who too concluded that the loss had occurred due to "the non-- providing of covered accommodation, heavy rains and non-disposal of stocks well in time" and recommended that the loss in full may be written off. The Authorised Officer fully agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he too recommended that "the amount of entire loss may be written off'.
Keeping in view the report of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Authorised Officer the Authority "endorsed" the recommendations and sent the case with all connected papers to the Director Food ostensibly for getting the total loss written off from the competent Authority i.e. The Finance Department. In response the Authority was advised by the Director Food to decide the matter at his own level. Accordingly, the Authority/Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur again wrote off the loss up to the extent of Rs.10 thousand per ganjy and ordered the recovery of the remaining loss amounting to Rs.10,22,172.92 from the appellants in equal proportion. As the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid order dated 26-12-1989 was not decided by the Director Food the appellants have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal after the expiry of 90 days.
4. The appellants have contended that the departmental proceedings have been vitiated as the Authorised Officer failed to issue the mandatory notice under rule 7-A of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules before recommending the case to the Authority; that the Authorised Officer who conducted the enquiries one after the other had recommended that the whole of the loss needed to be written off as the appellants were not responsible for it; that even the Enquiry Officer had found that the shortage had occurred due to the natural causes; that the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules had attained finality in the first round of the proceedings when the Authority accepted the recommendations of the Authorised Officer and that he had only referred the case to the Director Food for writing off the total loss otherwise the appellants stood exonerated of the charge of shortage; that instead of writing off the total loss which he was competent to do the Director Food unnecessarily referred the case back to the Authority; that the Authority could not reopen the case and that this illegality has vitiated the entire proceedings; that the Authority had actually exonerated the appellants and intended to write off the entire loss but due to the limitation of his powers he had referred the matter to the high ups for doing the needful and as such the appellants had been the victim of the rigidities of law, rules and regulations.
5. The respondents have contested the appeal by stating inter alia that the loss which was genuine was written off and the rest which was not justified was ordered to be recovered; that as no regular orders for the finalisation of the case were issued the Authority could, therefore, decide the case subsequently.
6. It will be observed that the case has been decided on three different occasions I)y the same Authority i.e the Deputy Director, Food, Bahawalpur, Firstly, it was decided by him vide his order dated 30-12-1985 wherein while agreeing with the recommendations of the authorised Officer that the loss was caused "due to natural calamities" but as he was. "competent to give them rebate up to Rs.10 thousand per unit" only the relief was given to them to that extent only. This order by the Authority was, however, upset by the Appellate Authority/Director Food vide his order dated 23-8- 1986 and the case remanded for a fresh enquiry through an Enquiry Officer. The second order of the Authority is dated 19-1-1987, which was issued as a result of the fresh proceedings. The Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Authorised Officer that the loss "had occurred due to the natural chronology of the circumstances and was beyond the compass by the officials to control". He endorsed these recommendations and referred the case to the Director Food evidently for writing off the loss in full. There was nothing wrong with this order and the recommendations made therein. The Deputy Director Food, Director Food and the Secretary Food are empowered to write off losses in such cases up to Rs.10 thousand per unit only. If these are to be written off in toto then the case has to be referred to the Finance Department which alone is competent to write them off in full. Thus instead of sending the case back to the Authority, who had already become functus officio after passing the aforesaid order dated 19-1-1987, the Director Food should have forwarded the case to the Finance Department for writing off the entire loss. Reliance in this behalf is placed on cases reported as PLD 1990 Lah. 357 ant] 1956 SCMR 1137. In this context all the proceedings taken thereafter which followed as a direct result of the direction dated 10-5-1987 of the Director Food were illegal and of no consequence. In these circumstances the third order-dated 26-12-1989 passed by the Deputy Director Food was also superfluous and not valid. Thus the only order which remained in the filed is the Authority's order dated 19-1-1987 wherein the Authority had clearly held that the loss had occurred "due to the natural chronology of the circumstances and was beyond the compass by the officials to control".
This order had completely absolved the appellants of the charges as no iota of blame had been placed on them by any of the functionaries involved in the proceedings viz. The Enquiry Officer, the Authorised Officer and the Authority. As far as the matter relating to the writing off the loss is concerned the same is within the exclusive competence of the Finance Department.
7. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. There are no orders as to costs.
Member-II was transferred before the judgment was completed It is signed by the remaining Member under rule 24 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.