1984 PLP (C (PLC)

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Punjab, Lahore and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department, Lahore.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 17th May, 1982/28th May, 1982 be set aside and he be re‑instated in service from 28th May, 1982 with full benefits of pay, allowances and seniority etc. He has also prayed that he be allowed full pay for the suspension period.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted by Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Punjab, Lahore on 30th September, 1979. Details of the charge‑sheet and statement of allegations are at Annexures "A" and "B". The appellant submitted written reply to the charge‑sheet to the respondent No. 1 on 18th October, 1979. The appel lant was removed from service and was imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,34,834.34 to recover this Government loss as arrears of land revenue, vide order dated 2nd February, 1980 of respondent No.

1. The appellant filed an appeal, dated 14th February, 1980 to respondent No. 2 and the said appeal was accepted, vide his order, dated 22nd December, 1981 (Annexure "F"). It was decided therein that the appellant be re instated in service and de novo proceedings be carried out in his case strictly in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servant E & D Rules, 1975. It was also directed in the same order that the order passed by the Chief Engineer, Punjab punishing the appellant was beyond his authority and lie was directed to forward the case to the authority for final decision under rule 7 (8) read with rule 8 of the said) rules. The case was taken up again accordingly and the appellant was also heard in person by the `authority' before imposing punishment on him. Respondent No. 2 imposed the following penalties, vide his order, dated 17th May, 1982. (a) removal from service with immediate effect, and (b) recovery of Rs. 1,34,834.34 to be effected as arrears of land revenue. The appellant filed a review petition to respondent No. 2 which has been rejected, vide his order, dated 10th July, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been vehemently argued by the appellant's counsel that the appellant has been made responsible for the shortage of material/stores which occurred as a result of defective administrative arrangements of the departmental authorities. The appel lant was transferred to Highways Sub‑Division, Rajanpur working on R. K. Road which was 118 miles away from D. G. Khan. Having been posted at a place 118 miles away from the said store/material it was physically impossible for the appellant to vouchsafe the proper mainte nance and accuracy of the stock. The appellant had hardly and time to supervise or check the material at D. G. Khan. The appellant remained posted there from April, 1972 to December, 1972 which period was sufficient for the shortage and pilferage of the material. During his stay at Rajanpur, the appellant happened to visit D. G. Khan and found some of the stocks short. He reported the matter to his S. D. O. to the effect that there was pilferage due to the lack of proper watch and ward but no notice of the same was taken. Account of issue of crust material had been checked by the S. D. O./X. E. N. The appellant had also handed over the charge of articles as per receipt in his possession and as such there was no shortage whatsoever. Moreover, the exact detail of tools and plants which were alleged to be short were not disclosed to the appel lant. The appellant's counsel further submitted that under these circum stances the appellant has been made scapegoat for the misdoing of the Departmental authorities and he is innocent in the matter. The authority i.e. the Secretary, Communications and Works Department had not applied his mind independently and fully to the above‑noted crucial facts of the case and the order passed by him for punishing the appellant is quite mechanical and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the appellant has also objected by submitting that in this case the proceedings have not been conducted as per provisions of the Punjab Government Servants (E & D) Rules. 1975 by the "Authority" and the "Authorized Officer" and thus the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter. He has referred to the details so given by him in his appeal under para. 6 (Grounds)

5. On the other band, the learned District Attorney has submitted, with the assistance of the representative of the Department, that the appel lant has been proceeded correctly under the provisions of the E & D Rules, as is clear from the stand taken by the respondents while submit ting their para-wise comments on this appeal. It is also clear from the facts of this case that the "Authority" had not agreed with the Authorized Officer in the first instance when he found that the proper procedure under the E & D Rules had not been taken. Later on, the authority had conducted the proper procedure while imposing the punishment to the appellant and had applied his mindfully before (imposing the penalties on the appellant. Thus, the objection of the appellant's counsel that proper provisions of E & D Rules have not been followed is not based on facts and is misleading. On the merits of this case, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that if a reliance is made on the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, the allegations were properly enquired into by him and the allegations were proved against the appellant with out any doubts. Hence, the appellant has been punished validly and correctly.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have also consulted the record of this case carefully. The appellant's counsel has contested this case before us, on these two main grounds :‑ (i) that the appellant was transferred and was made to work at a distance of 118 miles from D. G. Khan where the stores were lying and it was not physically possible for the appellant to vouch safe the proper maintenance and accuracy of the stores/material Thus, the pilferage had occurred when the appellant was away from D. G. Khan and the appellant was not guilty at all. (ii) The authority did not apply his mind independently and fully while imposing the penalties upon the appellant and had simply confirmed the same punishment which was awarded by the Chief Engineer, Highways, the Authorized Officer in the first instance which had been set aside previously by the same authority, vide his order, dated 22nd December, 1981, We have taken pains to consult the record of this case to find out the correct facts. The perusal of the record and the enquiry report shows that the appellant had nowhere reported the pilferage and never made a report to the police for such pilferage or theft of the material so conten ded by the appellant's counsel. This contention has also been contradic ted by the respondents in their para-wise comments (Ground =d) which are reproduced as follows :‑ "No doubt the appellant was transferred to Rajanpur yet he actually did not shift his Headquarter to R. K. Road as is obvious from the S. D. O. letter No. 8‑E/7012, dated 9th February, 1974 addressed to the Executive Engineer, M. M. Division, Multan a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure 'B'. The appellant physically remained at D. G. Khan and it was entirely his responsibility to watch and look after the stock D. G. Khan crushed site. During the enquiry proceedings the Enquiry Officer asked the appellant to intimate (with documentary proof) the steps taken by him against the pilferage, but the appellant replied that there was nothing on record. It is, however, added that had there been any pilferage/ theft of Government material, the appellant was duty bound to get the case registered with the police for investigation or send report to the S. D. O./Higher authorities, but the appellant did not do so which reflects that appellant did not perform his official duties effectively." We have also gone through the enquiry report Mr. Muhammad Yasin, XEN, Highway Division, Vehari (Annexure "C" with para-wise comment of the respondents). This enquiry report fully establishes/proves the charge and shortage of Government material/store against the appellant. The note portion of file No. E‑II‑13/7/75 of C & W Secretariat also deals with this case. The Secretary C & W after going through the record of this case and paras 219 to 253 of the said note portion bad applied his mind fully, independently and had passed the orders for imposing the penalties, vide para. 253 on 11th May, 1981. Thus there is no truth also in the contention of the appellant's counsel that the "Autho rity" had not applied his mind fully and independently while awarding the punishment to the appellant.

7. Regarding other legal objections raised by the appellant's counsel, we find that there is no lacuna in this case and the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D Rules, 1975. We also find from the record that at one stage had "authority" had not accepted the punishment awarded by the "authorized officer" and had declared it null and void. De novo proceedings were ordered strictly in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Consequently, the appellant was finally punished by the competent authority by applying his mind fully in accordance with the provisions of E & D Rules. Thus, the appellant has not been prejudiced in the matter.

8. The upshot of the above analysis is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.