' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---During his posting as a Foodgrains Inspector at P.R. Centre Kotsamaba, District Rahimyar Khan in 1982-83, Jam Manzoor Ahmad appellant purchased and stored 4412.560 tons of wheat. Subsequently, on the final clearance of the stock, wheat weighing 327.712 tons was found short. The department decided to proceed against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Food Controller, Rahimyar Khan (the authorised officer) framed the charge and communicated it to the appellant together with the statement of allegations requiring him to submit written defence within fourteen days of the receipt of the charge-sheet. The Assistant Food Controller, Rahimyar Khan , was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
2. The appellant failed to submit his written defence. He, however, appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 20-5-1986 and explained his position. The Enquiry Officer, vide his Report dated 20-5- 1986 came to the conclusion that the shortage of the wheat was beyond the human control. The staff tried to save the Government from loss but due to untimely rains/wind storms, the wheat could not be saved. He recommended that the entire loss may be written off. This report was considered and agreed to by the authorised officer/District Food Controller. Agreeing with the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer and the authorised officer, the authority/Deputy Director (Food), Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, referred the matter to the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, who returned the case with the direction that the authority/Deputy Director Food shall decide the matter himself. By this time, the authority/Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur had been transferred. The successor authority, in compliance with the order of the Director Food, Lahore, examined the case afresh. The appellant was called and heard, and the record was perused by him. Partially agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer and the authorised officer, the authority decided to recover a loss valuing Rs,3,41,084.64 being the cost of 181428.169 Kg. Of wheat, from the appellant in six equal monthly instalments. In its order, the authority has stated as under:-- "It is true that generally there were rains during 1982-83 and the stocks were in open but there is nothing on record submitted by the accused official to prove that:
(i) He really took possible efforts to spray the stocks.
(ii) And there really were so heavy rains at that particular centre i.e, 63/P (Behja).
' Moreover, even for rains and natural calamities tarpaulines are provided and propet damage is done. If the official had availed and utilised these facilities properly and had he been more vigilant so much losses would not have occurred. However, the period of storage is also considerably long, particularly for Ganjies Nos. 16 to 34 from which the loss of.Rs,10,000 per each unit is written off. For the rest i.e, from Ganjies Nos. 1 to 15, the entire loss is written off. I may also add that this is a very lenient view taken by the undersigned. The accused official deserved more severe punishment than mere recovery. I am sure that if the accused official had been more vigilant so much losses would not have occurred."
3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed on 12-1-1991 on the identical grounds that there was nothing on record to prove that there were really heavy rains at that particular centre and the appellant had really made all possible efforts to save the stock. The Tribunal was also of the view that had the appellant availed of all the facilities, provided to him, properly and had he been more vigilant losses would not have occurred. Feeling still aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court, which, in view of the decision of this Court in Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti v. Director, Food Punjab, Lahore and others (Civil Appeal No, 361 of 1987, decided on 19-6-1991: 1992 SCM R 1864) was granted, subject to limitation.
4. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case, we need not go into the merits of the case. We find that the authority has punished the appellant/accused in sheer disregard of the observations made by this Court in Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti's case and rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, inasmuch as, neither the statements Of the witnesses in proof of the charge were recorded, nor any opportunity to produce evidence in defence was given to him. Instead he was heard orally by the Enquiry Officer. The guidelines given by this Court in Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti's case were also not followed, in that, without determining as to whether or not the appellant had acted in breach of any order, in terms of rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the authority has A ordered directing, the recovery of a heavy amount from him. The Enquiry Officer, the Authorised Officer and the predecessor of the authority had given concurrent finding that the appellant was not responsible for the shortage which was due to the natural causes beyond his control. The authority has just ignored the concurrent findings of the three responsible officials and has substituted its own decision based on surmises and conjectures. We feel that without recording evidence it was not possible at all for the authority and also for the Punjab Service Tribunal to hold that there was no heavy rains at that particular Centre or that the appellant was neither vigilant nor he made possible efforts to save the stock. In this view of the matter there is no alternative but to accept this appeal.
5. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. The impugned judgment and the order of the authority is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh enquiry by the Enquiry Officer to be appointed by the Authorised Officer, in accordance with law and the observations made by, this Court in the judgment delivered in Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti's case. Copy of the judgment delivered in Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti's case shall also be sent to the Authorised Officer alongwith .Copy of this order.