1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 28-2-1993 passed in Appeal No,499 of 1991 against the dismissal from service and direction to pay Rs,7,18,508.96, dismissing the same.
2. ' The brief facts are that at the relevant time the appellant was working as Foodgrains Inspector and was incharge of P.R. Centre, Zahir Pir, District Rahimyar Khan during wheat scheme 1931-82, where 6813.970 M.Tons wheat was stored. It seems that the storage results shown in SF-26 (Annexure-8) disclosed a loss of 895.385 M.Tons; which was considered by the department to be abnormal, unjustified, self-created and being the result of misappropriation. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice, dated 10-8-1985 under Rule 6(3) of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) charging him with negligency, carelessness and misbehaviour. He submitted his reply undated, wherein he denied the allegations of having misappropriated or acting negligently or carelessly. His explanation was that the above stock had been lying continuously for 2-1/2 years and on account of climate, insects, wild animals and birds and because of 'Khapra' and 'Susri' the stock was damaged extensively. It seems that the Inquiry Officer/Authorised Officer accepted his above reasons and exonerated him and made recommendation to the Authority for writitng off the entire loss. However, the Authority did not agree with the above recommendation and directed that a regular inquiry be held by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer also recommended that the above loss should be written off, To the above finding, the Authorised Officer agreed, but the Authority again did not accept the above recommendation and held the appellant guilty of misappropriation by order, dated 7-7- 1988 and directed total recovery. Upon appeal, the departmental appellate authority remanded the case for reconsideration of the appellant's contention that he was not at fault. Thereupon, the Authority by its order, dated 9-3-1990 accepted the defence plea partially by holding that 504.891 M.Tons of wheat was damaged by natural causes but the residue 390.494 M.Tons was a shortage caused by misappropriation on the part of the appellant. Consequently, it ordered appellant's dismissal from service besides recovery of Rs,718,508.96 by its order, dated 9-3-1990. The appellant's departmental appeal was dismissed on 16-7-1991. After that he approached the Tribunal by filing the above appeal, but the same was dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted for the reason that leave was already granted on 2-6-1992 in C.P.L.A. No .681-L of 1991 (Jam Manzoor Ahmad v. Director (Food), Punjab, Lahore and another, in which the questions of law and fact requiring determination were similar to the questions of law and fact in the case in hand for whose consideration leave to appeal was granted.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that there was no reliable material before the Authority on the basis of which it could be concluded that the appellant was responsible for misappropriating wheat to the extent of 390.494 M.Tons. According to him, there was no evidence against the appellant. His further submission was that since the wheat was not stored in the house type godown, the normal loss would be 9% to 11% per year and, therefore, the above alleged shortage stands accounted for.
4. ' On the other hand, Mr. Altaf Elahi Siddiqui, learned Additional Advocate-General has urged that the department had given due allowance by deducting 504.891 M.Tons from the total shortage on account of the normal loss.
5. ' We would not like to express our views on merit on the above contention, as we intend to remand the case to the department for fresh inquiry as was done in the case of Jam Manzoor Ahmad v.
6. Director (Food), Punjab, Lahore and another (1996 SCM R 447) on the basis of which the leave was granted in the present case for the following reasons:-- "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 & 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 defense 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 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 control. The authority had 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 Authoised Officer alongwith copy of this order."
7. The case is remanded to the department in terms of the above quoted para. No,5 of the extract.