2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(iii) On 19-7-1986 Report was sent to concerned police station and registered the case. (iv) On 12-12-1986 Case was discharged by police authority being untraced. Result was obtained on 20-1-2000.

2. Case No.II is regarding cutting of trees in RD 80-81/Right. RD 81-82/Right and Link Road of AP Branch:-- (i) On 28-1-1987 Initial report regarding illicit cutting of trees given vide canal wire No.2830. (ii) On 29-1-1987 SDO B&D (Undersigned) confirmed the occurrence after site inspection and requested XEN BWP to allow to be registered with police. (iii) On 4-2-1987 SDO B & D issued reminder vide canal wire No.434 to XEN BWP for permitting to hand over the case to police. (iv) On 24-2-1987 XEN BWP instead of according approval issued orders vide his canal wire No.2411 not be hand over the case to police. (v) On 24-2-1987 SDO B&D again requested him (XEN BWP) to reconsider his orders, but no response after it."

3. In pursuance of above proceedings an inquiry officer was appointed who after taking into consideration material available on record opined that the respondent was negligent in not lodging the report. As such on accepting the finding of the inquiry officer the competent authority ordered that an amount of Rs.388026 be deducted from his pension. The order passed by the department was challenged by the respondent before the Punjab Service Tribunal who vide impugned order accepted the appeal. As such instant petition has been filed by the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Punjab.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has failed to discharge his duty, therefore, the Government has sustained huge loss at his hand, as such department has rightly taken the action against him and interference by the Tribunal in the order of the department is uncalled for, as such it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. It may be noted that respondent received information in respect of the first incident of theft of trees on 26th June, 1986 and after inspecting the site and soliciting necessary permission from the Executive Engineer he got registered a case at Police Station Bahawalpur on 26th July, 1986. As far as second incident of theft is concerned he sought the approval of Executive Engineer on 29-1-1987 for registration of the case but the Executive Engineer gave no response. Later on he issued a reminder on 4th February, 1987 for permission to do the needful. Surprisingly on 24th February, 1987 the Executive Engineer directed the respondent to hold in abeyance registration of the case.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above we are of the opinion that as far as respondent is concerned he has discharged his duty by informing the Executive Engineer and registering a case in respect of first incident of theft of the trees but regarding second incident the Executive Engineer did not permit the respondent to lodge report because he told him to keep in abeyance the registration of the case. Therefore, under these 4 circumstances the Tribunal was right in granting relief to respondent. Thus no interference is called for in the impugned order by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3), of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and accordingly petition is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./S-307/S Petition dismissed.