2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Ashraf, Superintendent for Respondent No.1. Khadim Hussain Sindhu, District Attorney for the Remaining Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th November, 2002. Rab Nawaz Baloch appellant, was serving as Baildar in BS‑1 in the Zoological Gardens, Bahawalpur. He was served with a show‑cause notice on account of his negligence and inefficiency committed by him during his duty at the Bahawalpur Zoo between the night of 30th and 31st January, 1991, two antelopes were killed and two other were found missed. Appellant in his reply admitted that on the night of 30th and 31st January, 1991, he was on duty as Chowkidar throughout the night but when the night was ending, due to weak health he went to sleep and in that time somebody stole the antelopes about which he informed his superiors next morning which shows that he was not at fault. Dr. Muhammad Naeem Chughtai, was appointed as Inquiry Officer and found from the record a letter dated 11‑4‑1998 written by the appellant to the Curator Bahawalpur Zoo, requesting him to be appointed as Chowkidar and thereafter never made any protests about his new assignment. Inquiry Officer took into consideration the admission made by the appellant that at the fag‑end of the night he dozed, which according to the inquiry report indicated negligence. Another aspect that in case of theft or another dangerous situation cropping up an alarming system is installed in the Zoo which when activated, all other Chowkidars immediately assemble for the help of the Chowkidar on duty. It is noted that no such signal was activated. The Authority after hearing the appellant vide order dated 11‑5‑1999 imposed upon him penalty of reduction in pay scale to the initial stage of his scale and recovery of Rs.40,000 as compensation to the Government for the loss. Appellant submitted an appeal to the Deputy Game Warden, Lahore on 1‑6‑1999, which was rejected on 12‑1‑2000. Both the orders i.e. 11‑5‑1999 of the Curator. Zoological Gardens, Bahawalpur and that of the Appellate Authority dated 12‑1‑2000 declining to interfere with the order of the Authority has been assailed in the instant appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no regular inquiry was held in his case which should have been conducted as factual controversy was involved and that the authorized officer while hearing the appellant did not provide him an opportunity of defence and lastly due to scanty arrangements of lighting at the Zoo, it was well nigh impossible to maintain a strict vigil round the clock. It was, therefore, submitted that the penalty was extremely harsh and should be reversed. On the other hand, learned District Attorney has supported the impugned orders.

3. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the record.

4. It is true that no regular inquiry was held. Probably, for the reason that the appellant himself volunteered to offer his duty, as Chowkidar and therefore, admitted that he dozed at the fag‑end of the night when theft took place. In view of the admission on vital points holding of an inquiry would have been an exercise in futility. Authorized Officer after going through his report gave full chance to the appellant to present his case. Appellant did not point out any lacuna in the report of the authorized officer denying him an opportunity of hearing. In the show‑cause notice, which the appellant cleverly omitted to place on the Court file, as it disclosed something extraordinary, was produced by the Departmental Representative during the hearing and has now been made part of the file. The fact of slaughtering of two antelopes was mentioned as its carcass was found lying outside the cage where the animals were kept. Now when two antelopes are slaughtered with in the premises of the Zoo it definitely takes time to complete the process, accompanied by sound of gurgling of the prey at the time of slaughtering. Bahawlapur Zoo is not a big Zoo of the country, therefore, it cannot be said at all these acts of commission went unnoticed by the appellant. There being no evidence of involvement at least negligence on the part of the 'appellant is proved to the hilt. 4‑A. The discussion leads me o t e result that the appellant failed to take care and caution expected from a Chowkidar and definitely was slack in his vigil. I, therefore, while maintaining the penalty of recovery of Rs.40,000 as compensation to be paid to the Government, set aside the penalty of reduction in pay scale to the initial stage of a scale same being not only harsh but contrary to law. Resultantly, appeal is partly accepted and recovery of complete amount of Rs.40,000 shall be. made from the salary of the appellant. H.B.T./113/P Appeal partly accepted.