KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.-- This order shall dispose of three petitions being CP No. 1 536-L of 2001, CP No. 2236-L of 2001 and CP No. 2235-L of 2001 which are directed against judgments dated 22.2.2001, 13.3.2001 and 8.2.2001 respectively of the Punjab Service Tribunal as all these three petitions arise out of similar facts and circumstances.
2. CP No. 1536-L of 2001 has been filed by Rao Ghulam Mustafa who was a Foodgrain Inspector employed with the department of Food of the Government of the Punjab and was, during the relevant time i.e.-the year 1990-91, posted as such an Inspector at P.R. Centre Mandi Sadiq Ganj, District Bahawalnagar, 11,461/- M. Tons of wheat had been purchased by the Government during the year 1990-91 season and was stored at the above-mentioned Centre in the shape of 51 Ganjies (pyramids). On final clearance, 154 M. Tons of wheat was declared short which was considered abnormal as a result of which the District Food Controller of the area and Rao Ghulam Mustafa were charge- sheeted for having mis-appropriated the said amount of wheat; for not having prepared storage results (SF-26) within the time prescribed under the rules and for thus having caused a loss of Rs. 4,63,540/- to Government. The Inquiry Officer found the charges not proved against the DFC and found Rao Ghulam Mustafa petitioner responsible for the same. The Authorised Officer (Director Food Punjab) however did not agree to the recovery of the entire loss amount from the petitioner and recommended that 1 /3rd of the total damage be written of and that the appellant be directed to make good only 2/3rd of the loss by way of punishment as a major penalty. The Authority (the Food Secretary) agreed with this recommendation of the Authorised Officer and passed orders accordingly. Aggrieved by this, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal and contended that the entire damage had been caused by heavy rains; by pests; on account of the storage area being saline and because instead to to officials being posted at the said Centre, he was the only one deputed for the purpose who thus could not effectively supervise the stocked' wheat. He pleaded that the damage in question had been caused' for reasons beyond his control and he was thus not liable for the same. The reply of the department was that the petitioner was provided with bricks for the purpose of dunnage; he was provided with Tarpaulin to cover the stocked wheat; that he had also been provided with the requisite quality of insecticide to protect the wheat from insects and pests; that the place of storage had been selected by the petitioner himself; that he had never complained of absence of another official to assist him in the assignment in question and that in the circumstances having been provided with all the necessary facilities for the protection of stocked wheat, the loss in question was on account of sheer negligence and ulterior motives on the part of the petitioner. It had also been submitted by the department that the petitioner had intentionally avoided preparation of SP-26 report within the prescribed one week in an attempt to conceal the mis- appropriation in the garb of damage.
3. CP No. 2-235-L of 2001. Has also been-filed by the same Rao Ghulam Mustafa Foodgrain Inspector emanating from a similar order passed by the Departmental Authorities directing him to make good a loss of Rs. 3,81,778'. 14/- which had accrued to the Government on account of the damage Caused to the wheat stock and Bardana within short span of six months and 19 days. The defence plea of the petitioner even in this case was the same as noticed-above in the earlier case and similar was the case of the department.
4. CP. 2236-L of 2001 has been filed by one Rao Ghulam Khalid who was also a Foodgrain Inspector posted at the Flag Centre Ahmed pur Mcleod Gunj, District Bahawalpur and where a loss of 88.226 M. Tons of wheat had been declared on final clearance of the stocks. As a result of the Departmental proceedings he had also been directed to make good a loss of Rs. 3,08,791/- (being a cost of 88.226 M. Tons of wheat) in equal shares alongwith Muhammad Yasin Foodgrain Supervisor and his dismissal from service was also ordered. During the course of his appeal before the Service Tribunal he offered to make good the loss to the extent of 17.351 M. Tons and the Service Tribunal remanded the case back to the Food Secretary for .Considering the matter in the light of the offers made by the petitioner and his companion Foodgrain Supervisor. The Secretary Food, through his fresh order dated 24.6.1999, re-heard the petitioner but maintained the earlier order passed by him. The plea of the petitioner before the Service Tribunal was that the loss had been caused due to unprecedented rains and that he should not have been burdened with the entire loss which had been caused by factors beyond his control.
5. The pleas similar to the ones noticed-above raised before the Service Tribunal, were reiterated before , us by the learned counsel for all the three petitioners. He was .Confronted with the detailed judgments passed by the Service Tribunal in all the three cases wherein all the contentions raised by the petitioners including their explanation .Of the reasons causing the loss in question, had been duly considered by the learned Tribunal and had been duly answered. All the submissions raised by the learned counsel related to factual controversies which were pure question of fact and had been duly considered by the concerned Departmental Authorities, a also by the Service Tribunal.
No reason was shown as to why this Court should interfere with the consistent findings of all the said Authorities and the learned Appellate Tribunal, It may be added that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is limited only to consider substantial questions of law which were of great public importance. No such question was raised by the learned counsel which could warrant determination by this Court.
6. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these; petitions. All these petitions are dismissed.
Leave refused.