2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(6) That construction of spur at RD 30800 Fateh Muhammad Distributory was also in progress when you took over charge of Kasur Division during October, 1995. Due to poor management/planning, progress of work remained very slow and despite written as well as verbal instructions, execution of work on the spur was not reasonably accelerated. (7) That you failed to arrange watching of spurs during the floods and are guilty of gross negligence. Had there been proper watching, the damage could have been averted.

3. Appellant replied to the charge‑sheet denying the allegations. The reply to the charges, in which the Inquiry Officer has declared the appellant faulty, only, is, reproduced:‑‑ "The work on the spur was started in May this year and the river was successfully diverted on 1st August, 1996. The shank of the spur was almost complete and a slow work on the J‑Head was in progress. Funds for the work were received in May, 1996 and the work was accordingly started. Had the funds been received earlier, the work would obviously have been started accordingly. The undersigned is not responsible for arranging funds. It may however, be noted that after starting the work in May, 1996, the river was successfully diverted on 31‑7‑1996 i.e. in a period of a little over two months. The shank of the spur was almost complete. The slow work on J‑Head mentioned in the note by Secretary I&P Department was due to the fact that it could only be started after the completion of the shank upto J‑Head which was done on 31‑7‑1996. This progress was achieved when the scheme handicapped by insufficient funding." The findings of the Inquiry Officer on this charge are also quoted:‑‑ "The charge is partially proved due to the following reasons:‑‑ (1) Normally the flood works should not been executed during the flood season. Even a common man can understand that the flood works which cannot be completed before the commencement of flood season, should never be started. Whoever does it will be held responsible for the damage to the work due to floods. (2) The accused officer is responsible to the extent he re‑started and then mismanagement the works which could not be completed before the commencement of the flood season, 1996, Mr. Inayat Ullah is not the only person responsible for this negligence, but all those who did not take proper/timely action causing delay in the completion of the work in time are equally responsible for the failure of the works. However, it is pointed out that the Sub Divisional Officer is not placed at the decision making level. Therefore, his portion of responsibility for the commencement and completion of works before the flood season is minimal."

4. Similarly reply of the appellant to the charges at S. Nos. 5 and 6 are as under: "The work on the spur was started in May this year and the river was successfully diverted on 1st August, 1996. The shank of the spur was almost complete and a slow work on the J‑Head was in progress. Funds for the work were received in May, 1996 and the work was accordingly started. Had the funds been received earlier the work would obviously have been started accordingly. The undersigned is not responsible for arranging funds. It may, however, be noted that after starting the work in May, 1996, the river was successfully diverted on 31‑7‑1996 i.e. in a period of a little over two months. The shank of the spur was almost complete. The slow work on J‑Head mentioned in the note by Secretary I&P was due to the fact that it could only be started after the completion of the shank uplo J‑Head which was done on 31‑7‑1996. This progress was achieved for the scheme which was handicapped by insufficient funding." And the findings of the Inquiry Officer are also reproduced:‑‑ "As highlighted in allegation No. 1, the flood works which cannot be completed before the commencement of the flood season should not be taken up. All those who committed these irregularities including the accused are responsible for the damage to the works and consequent loss to the public exchequer. As the Sub‑Divisional Officer is not placed at the decision making level, he is only partially responsible for this negligence." The authorized officer however, did not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer and concluded that all the charges stood proved. The hearing officer endorsed the view of the authorized officer. Finally, the authority after perusal of the essential document proceeded to impose the penalty, now impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as regards charges Nos. 5 and 6, the liability wholly and solely lay upon the Executive Engineer as he had to commence the work and the appellant who was an SDO had no say in the commencement of the work. Therefore, the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding these charges suffer from an inherent defect. He further contended that the authorized officer without giving any reasons differed with the inquiry report. Learned D.A. on the other hand supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard the arguments at length and also perused the record.

7. The finding of the Inquiry Officer with respect to charge No. 1 is based upon common sense and is appreciated. Once the flood in the river starts inundating vast expanse of lands, `continuation of work becomes insignificant as firstly proper work cannot be carried out due to swellings of rivers and secondly the work done does not get sufficient time to become firm to withstand the onslaught of the ravaging waters. Every' officer entrusted with the work is responsible if the work is re sumed or continued during the flood seasons. The shifting of responsibility from the shoulders of the appellant as SDO to that of the Executive Engineer is an attempt to seek impunity in a futile manner. The Inquiry Office as rightly held at the concluded paragraph of his report as under:‑‑ "Not only Mr. Manzar Qayyum and Malik Inayat Ullah but all those officers who did not plan and execute the flood works properly and in time may be asked to explain their position and subsequently action taken against them if found guilty. The flood season finishes by the end of September. In the current case we find the concerned employees taking action for starting/ restarting the flood works in the. month of May of next year i.e. only one month before the commencement of the coming flood seasons."

8. The inquiry report, dated 8‑5‑1998 is by the Chief Engineer (Research), I&P Department who was an expert in his own field and the same has to be accepted being based on reasons acceptable to reasonable and prudent mind. On the other hand the discussion given by the authorized officer is shorn of reasons differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer.

9. Charges Nos.1, 5 & 6 having been proved, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant have not convinced me. The appellant has been retired compulsorily on 31‑7‑2001 whereas he was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 11‑3‑2003. Huge loss has been caused to the Government and the amount expended B on construction of the spurs in May, 1995 has gone waste. The penalty of compulsory retirement is quite commensurate with the irregularity committed. There is no force in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./122/PST Appeal dismissed.