2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 871-L to 877-L, 881-L to 886-L, 892-L to 898-L of 2011 as they are directed against a consolidated judgment dated 21-2-2011 vide which the learned Punjab Service Tribunal partly allowed nine appeals challenging the order of the departmental authority whereby the respondents officials of the Irrigation Department having been proceeded against on charges of inefficiency, misconduct, corruption and financial irregularities causing huge loss to public exchequer were awarded various penalties details of which are given below:-- Sr. No. Name of the Appellant Appeal No. Penalty imposed

1. Ghulam Murtaza Baloch, Executive Engineer. 1462 of 2010 Withholding of promotion for a period of three years along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.99,64,379.41

2. Mr. Shafique Ahmed, SDO 1387 of 2010 Withholding of promotion for a period of three years along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.51,05,927.48

3. Mr. Haider Zaman Khan, SDO 1496 of 2010 Withholding to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.74,38,467.65

4. Mr. Khalid Iqbal, SDO 1400 of 2010 Withholding of promotion for two years along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.4,28,608.

5. Mr. Ashraf Shahid, SDO 1458 of 2010 Withholding of promotion for three years along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.64,38,882.00.

6. Mr. Tahir Mehmood, Sub-Engineer 1449 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs. 28,32,517.91

7. Mr. Amir Sami Khan, Sub-Engineer 1450 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.25,58,739.58

8. Mr. Akhtar Ali, Sub-Engineer 1493 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.9,19,616.66

9. Mr. Mehboob-ul-Hassan, Sub-Engineer 1492 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.3,15,387.50

10. Mr. Wasim Ahmad, Sub-Engineer 1494 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.1,84,490.60

11. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, Sub-Engineer 1448 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.27,21,715.24

12. Mr. Ehsan Qadir, Sub-Engineer 1451 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.25,08,301.80

13. Mr. Javed Anwar, Sub-Engineer 1457 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.15,48,302.28

14. Mr. Ashfaq Cheema, Sub-Engineer 1447 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.13,08,493.63

15. Mr. Tariq Rasheed, Sub-Engineer 1452 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.13,03,077.44

16. Rana Khalid Mahmood, Sub-Engineer 1495 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs.11,54,324.85

17. Mr. Farman Ali, Store Keeper 1455 of 2010 Recovery of 1/8th of the loss of Rs. 66,68,175.15

18. Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Store Keeper 1455 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/8th of the loss of Rs.61,85,255.11

19. Mr. Ahmad Khan Khokhar, Store Keeper 1453 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/8th of the loss of Rs.61,85,255.11

20. Mr. Salamat Hussain, Store Keeper 1456 of 2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale along with recovery of 1/8th of the loss of Rs.1,90,62,310.67

2. The officials who were proceeded against were numbered as three XEN, five S.D.Os, eleven Sub Engineers and four store keepers. The allegations/charges levelled against them during inquiry were as follows:-- "Huge and excessive expenditure incurred during financial year 2002-2003 without any lawful authority and proper control/check. (i) You, with the connivance of Executive Engineer and SDO have managed to procure stock articles in bulk and huge quantity of spare parts and POL in excessive of the actual requirement for machines/vehicles etc. which resulted in misappropriation and embezzlement of this material. Moreover there was no such capacity for proper storages, especially for P.O.L. POL procured Rs.1,47,00,262 (ii) You, with the connivance of Sub-engineer/SDO/XEN managed to issue huge and bulk quantity of POL worth Rs.1,53,73,669/78 Ps during the year 2002-2003 resulting in heavy loss to manufacture account and leading to embezzlement of this material. This factitious issue of spare parts/POL booked to machines, which was finally withdrawn and placed in Misc. Advance of officers/official to conceal misappropriation and embezzlement.

2. The following documents were found incomplete and incorrectly maintained. (i) The scrap of spare parts issued have not been properly taken on scrap register as per details/units of issued material. In many cases the scrap have been accounted for/taken on scrap register in weight instead of original unit (in number) of material issued from stock register just to conceal the huge quantum of material issued from stock register just to conceal the huge quantum of material issued which in fact have been embezzled/ misappropriated. The scrap material have neither been put to physical verification nor the scrap register was produced, which clearly indicates that these are merely paper transaction to embezzle/misappropriate Government funds. (ii) The practice of annual physical verification and preparation of yearly and half yearly returns of Stock, scrap and T&P articles have not been exercised at all, which is the formost obligations under codal rule to check misappropriation and excessive purchase/issue and pilation of stock, a crime according to Account Code.

3. Storage of POL was in-appropriate and does not tally with the storage capacity. Storage of POL was not properly maintained. Huge and Excessive quantity of POL have been managed to procure un necessarily without consideration of storage capacity and monthly consumption, whereas it is all the time readily available in the market. Thus providing chances for misappropriation/ embezzlement leading to a huge loss to public exchequer. The withdrawal of the excessive expenditure originally booked to machines and finally placed in the Misc. Advances of Officers/ Officials is merely paper transaction to conceal the embezzlement, which also certifies these corrupt and malpractices prevailed therein.

4. The POL stores at Sub-Divisional Headquarter were poorly maintained at the residences of Storekeepers/in the field without any lawful authority and without keeping in view the storage capacity, security and watch and ward for safe custody of consumable items and same is the position regarding other material at site and scrap parts in the field and at the residences at Sub-Divisional Headquarters which is a serious slackness and resulted in heavy loss to public exchequer.

5. The Sub-Division has done purchase of spare parts and POL without calling tenders. (i) With connivance of SDO/XEN a huge and excessive quantity of lubricants (which are not rate contract items), appearing in the books of account for the year 2002-2003 have been shown purchased and payments are made without calling tenders/ quotations. (ii) Similarly huge and excessive quantity of spare parts have been procured with your connivance, without calling tender and publishing in Newspaper for wide publicity for competitive rate, violating all the Codal Rules. (iii) You, with the connivance arts of SDO/XEN managed to purchase bulk material/spares parts by splitting to avoid tendering and giving proper publicity to favour the contractors. (iv) Moreover one and same items have been purchased with different nomenclatures to avoid exceeding the limit of financial powers of purchase of each item under rules."

3. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the appeals on the ground that none of the officers who were proceeded against were deputed for the job of excavation, operation of excavation machines, checking of quality and quantity of purchase material and their job was only to enter the purchased material in the goods receipt sheet as well as stock register. It was further observed that the store keepers were not in any manner connected with the afore referred function. With regard to the alleged financial loss the learned Tribunal found that the department did not lead evidence tenable in law to prove the charge. One only evidence of the said charge was a prepared statement of Mr. Zafar Ullah Bhatti, Executive Engineer and the said XEN never appeared during the inquiry.

4. Learned Additional Advocate-General in support of this petition submitted that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate that a huge loss was caused to the public exchequer by the acts and omissions of the respondent's officials; that although the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the store keepers may not be open to exception but so far as the remaining officials are concerned they could not have been let off. He lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal extended indulgence in favour of some of the respondent's officials on the question of quantum of penalty shortly on the ground that one Irshad-ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer who was facing similar charges was dealt with leniently by the departmental authority imposing a penalty withholding of two annual increments and the tribunal proceeded to grant similar relief to other officials. Relying on a judgment of this Court reported as University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1999 SCMR 1639) learned law officer contended that in deference to the said judgment of this Court learned tribunal should have enhanced the penalty of the said Irshad rather than being lenient to other officials.

5. We have considered the submissions made and find that the learned law officer has not referred to anything in evidence or on record which could persuade us to interfere with the findings of fact qua lack of proof of financial embezzlement as also with regard to the fact that the charges were vague and no evidences were adduced to prove that the respondents Executive Engineers were directly responsible for making purchases and were dishonest in the said exercise or thereby made any financial gain. Similarly, the store keepers by virtue of their functions could not have been saddled with the liability of irregularities in purchase. So far as the reliance of the learned law officer on the judgment of this court (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable as the court in the said judgment did not find fault with the order of the competent authority or the judgment of the Service Tribunal on merits and therefore held that a lenient view with regard to the quantum of punishment was not called for whereas in the instant case the learned Tribunal has annulled the order of the departmental authority on merits and findings so rendered in the impugned judgment have not been found by us to be against the evidence led or the law declared. Learned law officer has not raised any question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution to warrant interference. This being so, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and the petition lacking in merits is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./C-8/SC Petition dismissed.