1984 P (PLP)

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing : 4th August, 1982. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑ Mr. Ikram‑ud‑Din, Sub -Engineer, Punjab Health Engineering has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore, Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore and Superintending, Engineer, Public Health Engineer Circle, Rawalpindi, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders of the respondent No. 3, dated 26th October, 1978 and respondent No. 2 dated 18th June, 1979 be set aside and the costs of this appeal be also allowed.

3. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was working as a Sub‑Engineer and was holding the charge of the Public Health Engineering Sub‑Division No. IV, Rawalpindi in the year 1973‑

74. The P. V. C. pipes were found short in his charge on the checking by the S. D. O. Public Health Engineering Sub‑Division No. IV, Rawalpindi on 14th November, 1973. He was accordingly served with a charge‑sheet. The reply of this charge‑sheet was submitted by him. The explanation was not found satisfactory. Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar, X E N, Public Health Engineering Division No. 11, Rawalpindi was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, Superintending Engineering, Public Health Engineering Circle, Rawalpindi, served the appellant with a show‑cause notice. He was also supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. A reply to the show‑cause notice was submitted by the appellant. He was beard in person by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Rawalpindi and after considering the pros and cons of the case and keeping in view the evidence and appellant's personal hearing as well, the appellant was held responsible for recovery of Rs. 19,153.80 on account of shortage of material and his two years increments with further effect were stopped by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Rawalpindi, vide his Office Order No. 152/G/(I), dated 24th October, 1979. He made an appeal to the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Lahore. The Chief Engineer accepted his appeal to the extent that the penalty of recovery of Rs. 19,153.80 shall stand but the stoppage of his two increments shall be without further effect, vide his Order No. 15‑ES/74/643‑47‑ES(4), dated 18th June, 1979. Hence this appeal.

4. The appellant's counsel has argued that the P. V. C. Pipes were lifted from the stores, under the charge of the appellant, on 3rd June, 1973 by the orders of his X E N when the appellant was not present. Moreover, some more P. V. C. Pipes were lifted on 24th June, 1973 also in the absence of the appellant, by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer, on both these occasions Thus, he has been made responsible for the shortage of the material which was lifted in excess from his stores in his absence by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer. The counsel further made emphasis on this point that he has been arguing this time and again and seeking adjournments to prove this very fact from the Stock Register which is in the custody of police and have not been produced by the Department in spite of the fact that sufficient time has been given by this Hon'ble Tribunal through adjournments of this case. If the stock register could have been before the Tribunal, the counsel could have made this fact clear from the said register. Furthermore, the 2nd physical verification which was carried out on 14th November, 1979 by the Sub‑Divisional Officer was made on the request of the appellant, dated 10th November, 1973 and thus the shortage for which the appellant has been made responsible was detec ted actually on the report of the appellant himself. This shortage was as a result of lifting of excess pipes by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer. The appellant further made a report on 24th November, 1973 to the Sub -Divisional Officer. Public Health Engineering Sub‑Division IV, Rawalpindi that stolen P. V. C. pipes were traced out at Pindi Gheb which had been layed there by the contractor in the section of Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub Engineer, Public Health Engineering Sub‑Division, Campbellpur. The appellant also informed the Sub‑Divisional Officer that the P. V. C. Pipes were being removed from trenches at the site of the work. The appellant counsel submitted that this was a clear proof that the excess pipes were taken by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer, in the absence of the appellant. Though this report was submitted to his immediate officer well in time but no action was taken to take these stolen pipes in custody. Further more, the appellant was not afforded the opportunities to appear before the Enquiry Officer, defend the allegations and also was not allowed to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the enquiry was not held according to the law. Concluding his arguments the appellant's counsel requested that in view of his above submission, the appellant is not guilty of the penalties imposed on him and the impugned orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be set aside. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by submitting that no doubt due to emergency, stores on 3rd June, .1973 were lifted in appellant's absence, but the next day he was in his office and he did check the stores. The stocks were checked physically by the Sub‑Divisional, Officer, Public Health Engineering, Sub‑Division No. IV on 5th June, 1973 and it was certified by the Sub‑Divisional Officer that the material as per balance in the register was lying in the store. No shortage was then detected by the Sub‑Divisional Officer. Thus, it proves that stock was correctly lifted on 3rd June, 1973. Lately the stock was lifted on 23rd June, 1973 and not on 24th June, 1973 as contended by the appellant and this stock was lifted in his presence. Thus, all the stocks which was lifted from his stores was correctly lifted in accordance with the indent and not in excess to that. The appellant made a vague report on 10th November, 1973 after the lapse of about 5 months saying that Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer, lifted excess pipes than the indented quantity and also he made another report, dated 24th November, 1973 telling that the stolen P. V. C. Pipes have been laid by the contractor in the section of Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub Engineer. This could not be proved as it has been clearly mentioned in the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer contacted the Investigation Officer who has visited Pindi Gheb alongwith the appellant but they could not trace any pipe layed over there. Thus, this contention of the appel lant could not be proved by him and was found absolutely incorrect and false. As regards opportunities to be provided to the appellant, it is clear that the first physical verifications on 5th June, 1973 was conducted in his presence. Moreover, on 14th November, 1973 the 2nd verification, wherein the shortages were detected, was also done in the presence of the appellant. Thus, the appellant cannot deny that he was not associated personally for checking the shortages against him. These shortages were slightly modified at the time of taking over charge from the appellant in this case too, the stocks were handed over by the appellant himself to his successor. A copy of the Enquiry report was also supplied to him for his defence. He was also heard in person by the respondent No. 3 before passing the impugned order. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that it has been proved beyond any doubts that he wag responsible for the shortages declared against him and also the penality of stoppage of two increments has been lawfully imposed on him.

5. We have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel of the appellant and the learned District Attorney and have carefully gone through the complete record of this case. We agree with the arguments put forward by the learned District Attorney that no doubt some material was lifted from the stores in the charge of the appellant, on 3rd June, 1973 in his absence due to emergency but when the physical verification was conducted on 5th June, 1973 two days later only, by the Sub‑Divi sional Officer, the stores were found correct. It is also clear that the remaining stock was lifted on 23rd June, 1973, not on 24th June, 1973 and that too in the presence of the appellant. Thus, the contention of the appellant that excess stock were lifted by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer cannot be substantiated. Moreover, no reliance can be made on his report dated 10th November, 1973 wherein he reported that excess pipes were lifted by Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer, as this report was submitted after a lapse of five months and was an afterthought and cannot be con sidered as correct by any stock of immagination. Similarly, his report dated 24th November, 1973 regarding laying of stolen pipes by contractor in the area of Mr. Abdul Hamid, Sub‑Engineer, could not be proved by him when he himself got these checked alongwith the Police Investigating Officer at site and no such pipes could be traced. All these facts have been well‑covered in the detailed and elaborate enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokbar, X E N, Police Health Engineering Division II, Rawalpindi, a copy of which was also supplied to the appellant. The reply of the appellant to show‑cause notice was considered. He was also heard in person. The impugned order by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Rawalpindi was passed after satisfying him that the appellant was actually found responsible for the shortages so detected. The Chief Engineer had also properly examined the case and taking a lenient view had reduced the punishment to some extent. As far as plea of the appellant's counsel for producing the stock register (now with police) is concerned, and could not be produced before the Tribunal by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, we have carefully considered this point as well and we have come to this conclusion that this has made no material difference as shortages against the appellant have, even, been proved from the facts enumera ted above and the evidence and proof available from the record in hand.

6. Keeping the above facts in view, we conclude and hold, that there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no costs to the parties. M.I. Appeal dismissed.