2005 PLP 1098 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑

This petition for grant of leave to appeal, under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is directed against judgment dated 14‑11‑2000 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.719 of 1999.

2. The petitioner was proceeded against for the shortfall of 53 M. Tons wheat from Godown of P.R. Centre Chowbara, District Layyah, during the years. 1989‑

90. He was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service along with recovery of Rs.2,11,202.88 being the cost of the wheat, vide order, dated 12‑2‑1998, passed by the respondent No.

1. His departmental appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.2, by order, dated 27‑2‑1999. The petitioner filed Service Appeal No.719 of 1999 which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 14‑11‑2000, passed by the Tribunal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was awarded double penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of amount for the loss of the wheat in violation of Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It was contended that the Authorised Officer had ignored the plea taken by the petitioner as also the findings of the Inquiry Officer exonerating him. He argued that the petitioner having already been removed from service in another case could not be proceeded against in the present one. The learned counsel relied on the case of Deputy Director, Food v. Akhtar Ali 1997 SCMR 343 in that behalf. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was prepared to make good the loss of wheat as already calculated by the Department in case the order of dismissal from service was set aside.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The Tribunal found that according to the 'original report S‑1, the condition of the wheat stock had been reported as sound/satisfactory but the petitioner prepared a fictitious copy of the report showing that the same had been infested. The Tribunal further observed that the prohibition of heavy mechanical traffic from Chowk Azam to Chowbara had nothing to do with the shortfall in the stock of wheat and that the relaxation, of the ban could always be sought from the District Magistrate. We find that on account of the reinstatement of the petitioner in service in the other case by the Tribunal, the objection based on the earlier removal from service pales into insignificance. Similarly, the principle of double jeopardy is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The purpose of order of recovery is to recompense the loss caused to the Government. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, an order of dismissal from service may not absolve a civil servant of his liability to make good the pecuniary loss caused to the Government or other Organization by or under which he is employed. Charles Manley Smith, in his book titled "the Law of Master and Servant", 7th Edition, p.67, has also expressed his view that "as a general rule, every servant is bound to take due and proper care of his master's property entrusted to him and if guilty of negligence, whereby his master's property is injured, he will be liable to an action." The reference, by the learned counsel, to the case of Akhtar Ali, (supra) was inapt. It was laid down therein that the Tribunal was empowered to modify, confirm or set aside the order of a departmental authority and that a civil servant could not be proceeded against after he had attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, the other objection of the learned counsel against the passage of composite order, dated 12‑2‑1998 of dismissal of the petitioner and recovery of amount due to loss of wheat passed by the departmental authority is also repelled.

5. No exception can be taken to the findings of fact recorded, by the Departmental Authorities and the Tribunal in the matter, after taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner. This case does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. M.H./M‑780/S Petition dismissed.