' Dr. Azhar Iqbal, appellant, a former Producer Group Officer in BS-17 in the Department of Livestock and Dairy Development, Government of the Punjab has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 12-12-2000 passed by Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, his authority arraigned as respondent No,1 whereby he was removed from service and imposed recovery of Rs,35,77,917.
Review petition filed by the appellant was rejected by the Authority on 7-2-2003 maintaining the earlier penalties imposed.
2. Appellant was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 and was served with a charge-sheet by his authorized officer while working at LPE Project, Lahore, accompanied by the following statement of allegations.
"Dr. Azhar Iqbal, Producer Group Officer, LPE Project, Lahore while posted as such has committed the following irregularities:--
(i) Purchased laptop computers at higher prices knowing well that these were not required as some are still lying in the packed condition in the store.
(ii) Making purchases of additional 885 cattle crushers at higher prices. These are not included in the approved PC-1 and were not required as many are still lying in the store.
(iii) Purchased 350 steel admirahs and 350 steel cabinets at exorbitant prices (100% higher).
(iv) Making purchase of sign-boards at higher prices.
(v) Making purchase of other veterinary equipment at high prices resulting in excess payment to the contractors.
(vi) Splitting up the procurement of equipment in several lots and processing without open bidding.
' This omission/commission amounts to corruption, inefficiency and misconduct on his part and is liable to be proceeded against under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975."
' Appellant denied the charges stating that the Coordinator of the Project of which he was undoubtedly a Member, made the purchases. The Director-General (Extension) formed a Committee to make all kinds of purchases of the Project. He alongwith Syed Ghulam Shabbir Bukhari, Capt. Ishfaq-ul-Hussain and Syed Sharif-ul-Hassan Zaidi were the Members. Their job was to process the cases and submit it to the Coordinator for further necessary action and in December, 1995, the Department notified another Committee to effectuate the purchases strictly in accordance with the guideline of procurement by the Asian Development Bank, a donor agency.
Appellant was also member of this Committee. The Coordinator, it is stated, floated many tenders in the press for the purchase of different equipments i,e, laptop computers, cattle crushers, office furniture, sign-boards etc. The Coordinator/ Director himself certified the responsibility of the purchase in the applications sent, on behalf of Government of Pakistan to the Asian Development Bank for making payment to the contractor. As per Financial Rules of 1990 enacted by the Government of the Punjab, appellant did not have any financial or administrative decision/powers to make any purchase. Even in his capacity as Purchase Officer, he was to act according to the instructions of the Coordinator. Regarding Charge No,V, appellant stated that the same was vague and ambiguous as it was not specified as to which veterinary equipment was being referred to and in absence of the said specifications, proper reply could not be submitted, as a result of which opportunity to defend himself was denied. The Inquiry Officer after the examination of about eight witnesses from the prosecution side concluded that the charges (i) to (v) stood proved against the appellant whereas Charge No,vi was not proved. The authorized officer recommended major penalty and the authority after hearing the appellant imposed the penalties, now impugned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant mostly repeated the arguments which were in sum and substance identical to the stance adopted by the appellant in reply to the charge-sheet, which at the sake of repetition was that Dr. Zahid Mehmood Sheikh was the Coordinator of the Committee and he alone made purchases duly authorized under the rules whereas the appellant was a mere Member and was only responsible for doing the ground work without having any authority to make the purchases. Learned counsel further contended that the donor agency i,e, Asian Development Bank, who had sponsored and bore all its expenditure had permitted the purchase of laptop computers, therefore, even in the absence of PC-I by the Planning and Development Department, the charge could at the most whittle down to a mere irregularity and no case of misconduct could never be envisaged. As regards the difference in price from the one in the market and that paid to the supplier, the submission of the learned counsel was that the payment was made as a result of the award of the Arbitration Committee comprising of the then Advocate-General, Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali and the Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and if there was any difference between the two prices, no blame could be put on the shoulders of the appellant. With regard to this charge, the last submission made was that the computers are in working order being used by the Department, therefore no loss has been caused due to any overt act or omission of the appellant. With respect to charge No,(ii) regarding the purchase of cattle crushers, 885 in numbers, once again, the plea was that it was the Coordinator/Director who sought concurrence of the Asian Development Bank for purchase of additional cattle crushers and through advertisement floated in the press, the purchases were made at the responsibility of the Coordinator with which he had no concern. Alluding to charge Nos.(iii) and (iv) appellant stated that no witness was examined to prove these charges against him by the Inquiry Officer, therefore, there was hardly any evidence on record that the purchases of 350 steel almirahs or sign-boards were made at higher prices. It was lastly contended that the penalty imposed was extremely harsh and required mollification. Learned District Attorney on the other hand assisted by the departmental representative supported the impugned orders.
4. I have listened attentively to the lengthy arguments of the respective counsels and persuaded the record.
5. It is an admitted fact that the laptop computers purchased were not given blessings by the P&D Department in its PC-I. It may be true that the donor agency may have permitted the Committee to make purchase of the laptop computers for better working of the Project, but the stark fact remains that the donor agency, who gave the money for the completion of the project had to act in unions with the requirement of rules prevalent in the making of purchase by different departments of the Government of the Punjab and one of such rules/regulations was the prior permission of the Planning and Development Department through the PC-I. This may be an argument for tampering the penalty, however, cannot be taken up as a complete defence to the charge. Abdul Majeed, Deputy Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab appeared as witness and in the cross-examination conducted by the appellant, he admitted that he did not know of any yardstick to assess the correctness or otherwise of the prices of the computers that were purchased in view of the arbitration. This witness denied that Finance Department approved the purchase of laptop computers. Again in the statement of Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui, Director Animal Health, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, it is stated that 12 laptop computers were purchased by Mr. Zahid Mehmood Sheikh which were not required for the Project. Out of the aforesaid computers, eight computers remained in the store till the end of the project while the rest of the computers were utilized. However later on, all the laptop computers were distributed after the approval of the administrative departments. The computers were reportedly purchased for Rs,29,14,800 but the payments were stopped. Later as the result of the award of arbitration Rs,27,00,000 was paid to the suppliers. The witness stated that the computers were not provided for in the PC-I, however, the approval of the Asian Development Bank was there, being the donor agency. Dr. Mahboob Elahi, Joint Chief Economist, Government of the Punjab, P&D Department, Lahore stated that in the first lot, the computers T-1800 was purchased at the rate of Rs,50,000 per unit on 2Q-9-1993, second lot was purchased on 16-10-1994 at the rate of Rs,138,000 and the last lot was purchased on 30-3-1996 at the rate of Rs,1,89,000 per unit. Finally, Muhammad Shafi Gill, Director-General (Ext.) Livestock and Dairy Development Department who appeared as a witness, admitted that the Project known as Livestock Production and extension in number of districts was funded by Asian Development Bank for which PC-I was prepared but laptop computers were not provided in the said PC-I. Dr. Zahid Mehmood was Incharge of the Project and Purchase Committee was constituted by him to process the actual purchase proceedings consisting of other members as well as the appellant. The Committee purchased laptop computers from the market despite the fact that these laptop computers were not part of PC-I. The loss calculated in the purchase of laptop computers, according to this witness came to Rs,11,64,000.
6. There is no tangible evidence to show that the Purchase Committee for the laptop computers squandered any amount being the value of the laptop computers, intentionally as, the same was purchased through inviting tenders. The computers were purchased in three lots, probably due to the requirement as and when it was felt. No witness has given definite statement supported with any documents that the price negotiated with the supplier was much higher than the price prevalent in the market. Even the amount paid to the supplier was Rs,27 lac, whereas the purchases were made at the agreed amount of Rs,29,14,800. In the absence of any evidence that the purchase was made at very higher rate to the pecuniary advantage of the appellant and others, it cannot be said that the appellant was hand in glove With the suppliers to make a windfall.
However, the culpability of the Committee making the purchases cannot be ignored that the permission to purchase the laptop computers was not included in the PC-I. The common argument raised that the donor agency i,e, Asian Development Bank allowed the purchase of the computers may be a mitigating argument, but certainly does not absolve the appellant from violating the instructions of the P&D Department. The oft repeated arguments that the purchases were made by the Coordinator, and the appellant was totally helpless have not at all impressed me. The ultimate responsibility may be that of the Coordinator, but certainly the appellant could raise his voice informing the Committee that purchase of the computers was contrary to the rules. I am sure if the appellant had courage to do this, it could have a salutary effect persuading the Coordinator and others to either get permission from the P&D Department or to stop the purchases there and then. Appellant therefore is to be blamed for being the member of the Purchase Committee which made the purchases of the laptop computers, contrary to rules. Another mitigating circumstance which can be taken into consideration is that the laptop computers are in the use of the Department.
7. Coming to charge No,(ii), the department before the Inquiry Officer led evidence through the mouth of the witnesses. Muhammad lqbal Siddiqui, Director Animal Health, Livestock and Dairy Development Department stated on oath that 885 cattle crushers were provided in the PC-I, 1770 cattle crushers were purchased by Dr. Zahid Mehmood. The cattle crushers numbering 885 were purchased in excess to the requirement of the project and no approval was obtained either from Asian Development Bank or from P&D Department, who prepared the PC-I. This witness deposed that Dr. Azhar Iqbal was one of the members of the Committee of Purchase of cattle crushers.
Another witness by the name of Dr. Mehhoob Elahi, Joint Chief Economist, Government of the Punjab, Planning and Development Department, Lahore also appeared as witness and on solemn affirmation stated that 885 cattle crushers whose purchase was approved by the P&D Department were purchased on 26-2-1995 at the rate of Rs,4200 per unit while second lot of 885 cattle crushers not approved by PC-I were purchased in 1997 at the rate of Rs,9750 per unit. Both these witnesses were cross-examined by the appellant. The Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report while dealing with this charge opined that the Committee was required to purchase only 885 cattle crushers.
However, they purchased 1770 cattle crushers beyond the scope given in the PC-I. The Chief Minister's Inspection Team through report recommended that additional crushers purchased beyond the scope of PC-I be got regularized from the competent authority i,e, P.D.W.P. The Livestock and Dairy Development placed the case before P.D.W.P., who did not approve the purchase of additional item. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges of purchasing 885 cattle crushers at exorbitant rates were proved against the appellant and three other members of the purchase Committee by the Government on 5-12-1995.
8. No doubt it is correct that the purchase committee comprising of the Coordinator alongwith three members was constituted on 5-12-1995 and one of the purchases to be made was 885 cattle crushers as approved by the Planning and Development Department in its PC-I. I have gone through the noting portion of the purchase of additional cattle crushers. On the note of the Store Officer, Local Purchase Committee pointing out that there was total requirement of 2610 cattle crushers in the Province of Punjab out of which 885 cattle crushers were purchased and a similar number of purchases are further required, and the rest will be procured in the next financial year.
Orders for the purchase of remaining 885 cattle curshers was solicited. Director, Local Purchase Committee ordered preparation of specifications purchase schedule for approval and report. Dr. Azhar Iqbal, one of the members prepared the specifications and schedule and placed it for approval. Director, Local Purchase approved the proposal and ordered it to be advertised in the press. On 26-10-1995, the advertisement appeared in the press. Four tenders were received and comparative statement was prepared on 10-12-1995. The Coordinator on the same date gave his remarks that the rates offered were on the high side and bidders be called for negotiations. After negotiations with the bidders on 11-12-1995, the Coordinator/Director ordered notification of the award to be issued. In the meanwhile, Asim Shehzad of A.M. Government contractor agreed to the price of Rs,9750 per unit of cattle crushers. Resultantly a form captioned table of bid prices was prepared endorsing Rs,9750 as price per unit. Zahid Mehmud m Sheikh, Coordinator alongwith the appellant and other members signed this document. The content of the documents referred to three certificates. No I was the particulars of the table of bid prices which were agreed to be correct, secondly that tenders received were posted in the above table and lastly per unit price was recorded, I am not prepared to believe that the appellant was mainly a dummy at the back and call of the Coordinator having no role to play in the purchases to be made. As a Member of the Committee, he was very well in the know that the purchase of the additional 885 cattle crushers were not sanctioned by PC-I. He should have raised an objection in the Committee meeting or on the noting of the file that such purchases were beyond the competence of the Committee.
Heavens would not have fallen if it was brought to the notice of the Coordinator and other member that the purchase intended to be made was beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee. Had this note C been written the deceitful intention on the part of either the Coordinator or any of the members would have been numbed and the huge loss of Rs,49, 11,750 would have been saved. The first lots of 885 cattle crushers were purchased at the rate of Rs,4200 per unit in the year 1995 whereas the remaining 885 cattle crushers purchased without requisite permission in the year 1997 at the rate of Rs,9750 per unit. No doubt the crushers are in use of the Department and sizeable income accrues to the Department by its use, however, the glaring fact that these purchases were made without authority and at exorbitant rates cannot be lost sight of. Even the continuous income to the Department cannot compensate for the loss. The argument that the Department is getting consistent revenue by the use of 885 cattle crushers purchased subsequently could have been valid if this purchase had been made at the same price as that of earlier 885 cattle crushers purchased in 1995 at the rate of Rs,4200 per unit. This difference of date Of purchase, when the prices had shot up from Rs,4200 per unit to Rs,9750 makes all the difference and brings in line light the excess committed by the Committee. Inactivity/lack of guts/fear of coining in had books not to offend the Coordinator makes the appellant equally responsible. It is too late in the day to say that the role of the appellant was mainly to see that the paper work is in order. This is an argument which I feel is on the face of it absurd. Signing of the table of bid prices by the appellant along with its Coordinator/Chairman and three members makes him responsible for the purchase of 885 cattle crushers at the rate of Rs,9750 per unit in the year 1997. It is the blessings which the appellant gave to the purchase which makes him liable under the law. I, therefore, conclude that the charge has been proved against appellant, firstly, he knew that the Committee had no jurisdiction to make the purchases of 885 cattle crushers having not been permitted by the PC-I and secondly the exorbitant rates at which it was purchased has caused huge loss to the Department.
9. Charge Nos. (iii) to (v) cannot be said to be proved against the appellant on the basis that no evidence was recorded that the purchases were made at a higher rate. Report of the C.M.I.T. Was considered the only evidence of purchases made at higher rate, but this report was not proved through the mouth of any witness thereby depriving the appellant a valid opportunity of cross- examination. Charge No,(v) being otherwise vague and ambiguous, denied the appellant of proper opportunity to defend himself. This charge also was not proved as evidence was lacking.
10. The arguments of the appellant that he was one of the members of the Committee and was acting under the influence of its Coordinator may not be a good defense for exoneration of the charge, however, it can be a mitigating circumstance when considering the quantum of penalty imposed. I, in my considered opinion tamper with the major penalty of removal from service and alter it to major penalty of one stage lower in time scale to run for four years. The difference between the purchase of 885 cattle crushers at the rate of Rs,4200 per unit and the purchase of the additional 885 cattle crushers at the rate of Rs,9750 per unit comes to Rs,49,11,750, If this amount is apportioned equally to four members of the Committee, each one is liable to the extent of Rs,12,27,937.50. The recovery of Rs,35,77,917 imposed by the Authority is reduced to Rs,12,27,937.50.
Appeal with the aforesaid alterations is dismissed.