2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(g) The stock on ground and ledger is same. (h) There is no system of checking on the gate of store. (i) The gate keeper slip is never given to the man drawing material. (j) the delivery of small quantity store can be made up any time by storekeeper. (k) The store was not sealed after the incident. (l) On checking the record store has regularly been issued. After going through the statements and findings Court opines that Mr. Alvi and Mr. Ain‑ud‑Din are involved in malpractices and have provided the material to Mr. Abdul Ghaffar. After going through the opinion the Court recommends following:‑ (a) Strict, disciplinary action be taken against Mr. Alvi for following:‑ (1) Providing store material to Mr. Abdul Ghaffar. (2) Giving wrong statement thus trying to mislead the Court. (b) Strict disciplinary action be taken against Mr. Ain‑ud‑Din for providing material to Mr. Ghaffar. (c) Mr. Sher Muhammad the Store Manager be warned to be strict and careful in dealing and managing the store affairs. (d) Gate keepers be posted to Regional Store to have additional material being drawn. (e) An individual with no red ink entry be posted as storekeeper, (f) All vacant/authorised post be filled up so as to lesses the burden of store and have being control by the storekeeper." As is evident this enquiry recommended disciplinary action against certain functionaries of the company who were associated with the Store and held them responsible for the theft of the Store material. No action was taken against them by the Company. We do not agree with the respondent that the appellant was punished for charges levelled against him in excess and shortages in the Regional Store and not because of the apprehension of Suzuki Pickup containing store articles of the WAPDA Regional Store. The appellant was suspended on 27‑10‑2000 as a sequel to the apprehension for Suzuki Van on 23‑10‑2000. The. Company thus seriously doubted his involvement in the theft case as such suspended him.

12. Then came the stock taking of the Store, which was carried out on 11‑2000, i.e. one month after the transfer of the appellant from the Regional Stores. The verification of the stores was carried out in the absence of the appellant, which has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant was not associated with the Store verification process so as to determine the excesses and shortages in his presence Normally such verifications of the stocks are done at the time of transfer of the officer supervising the affairs of the store or at the least by associating them in the process. The verification found some excesses and shortages in the store which were reflected in the charge‑sheet dated 25‑11‑2000. The Enquiry Committee constituted vide order dated 21‑2‑2001 held the appellant responsible for charges at (a), (b), (d & e) of the charge‑sheet and based on these charges dismissed the officer from service vide order dated 13‑1‑2001. The findings of the Enquiry Committee constituted vide order dated 25‑11‑2000 are reproduced below:‑‑ "Findings: The Committee' carefully examined the evidence and record produced both by the prosecution and defence. Keeping in view the principle of equity fair play and natural justice, Committee findings lit this case are as under:‑ (a) In the prosecution Charge No. a of surplus items found in store, following surplus were found to be incorrect. (i) 11 KV Disc insulators quantity 1488 worth Rs.736603/92 are shown in separate stock cards with sane items code relating to Kuwait Fund Program. This was not shown to the Committee during verification. (ii) 78 HT structures which were shown as excess by the prosecution, this Committee verified on ground that 73 of these structures were delivered by M/s PEL and the store staff allowed these to be kept without delivery challan and GRN. An amount of Rs.685599 may, thus not be considered as surplus. (iii) Rest of the material shown, as surplus is considered correct. (iv) As far as shortage of material is concerned except steel drums amounting of Rs.49069 and AC with stabilizer amounting to Rs.23940 rest is considered correct. (v) Therefore, the Charge No. a. levelled against the accused on the basis of above findings stands proved, after correction of amounts. (b) In the prosecution Charge No. b. of Hitachi Airconditioner being illegally taken from the store and used privately in his house has been found to be correct after going through the evidence statement of both the prosecution, accused and the co‑accused (Mr. Yousaf Alvi) and hence proved. (c) In the prosecution charge No. c of Laptop computer being charged by the accused from Toshiba to Epson and could not be established on‑ the basis of evidence provided. (d) The prosecution charges No. d and a of loose managerial control and supervision leading to malpractices by the subordinate staff is correct and hence proved. The accused during his entire tenure did not carry out any physical stock verification and has not complied any SVR's as per the requirement of store manual that 1/12 of the store is to be physically verified every month." In the meantime another Enquiry Committee was constituted by. WAPDA vide order dated 24‑11‑2000 amended by order dated 11‑12‑2000 under D.G. (Surveillance). The findings of conclusion and recommendations of the Enquiry Committee are reproduced below:‑ Findings: (i) The overall condition of the Regional Store, QFSCO. Quetta was very poor, because very costly material worth millions of rupees was lying in the open field, having no sheds and boundary wall, as well as, without any gate and adequate security staff/gatekeepers, arid there is every possibility of theft of this valuable material at any time. It as noticed that a No. of letters were written by Regional Store Managers to the QESCO higher ups during the last two years for constructions of boundary wall and sheds (Annexure‑K) but no action was taken by them on this sensitive issue. (ii) Majority of the material was lying without Bin cards and no entries of receipt and issue of material were being made as per prescribed store procedure. (iii) There is a shortage of staff in the Regional Store for which Regional Store Manager has time and again written to the QESCO Authorities for provision of the same (Annex‑1), but no action was taken on this genuine request. (iv) The Regional Director Inventory Control/Chief Executive QESCO, Quetta are placing orders for the purchase of material worth millions, of rupees, but they do not have WAPDA standard specifications according to which material is to be purchased. For instance the standard specification of HT/IT structures' was required from R.D.I.C. who could not produce it, stating that they were not having any specification of WAPDA material. Placing orders of huge amounts without going through the relevant specifications, is a major source of acceptance of substandard material at the consignee's Efficiency and Discipline Rules, because none of the officers is properly educate; to accept the materiel according to the specification. Resultantly the defective material is being, accepted as is evident from the recommendations of Inquiry Committee headed by S.E. 1st QESCO, which recommended for acceptance of repaired broken structures without going through the relevant specification/ Purchase Order. (3) The stolen material recovered by the local police from the custody of a civilian was also inspected in the local police station and found that it was the same material which was available in the Regional Store QFSCO, Quetta and Mr. Ain‑Uddin Senior Store Keeper, as well as, Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Alvi, Junior Store Keeper were rightly pointed out by the accused and were also nominated in the F.I.R., but due to lack of pursuance of the case the QESCO authorities, the above said store keepers have not been challaned by the police and are set free. If the matter was persuaded with the local police, so many other theft instances would have also been unearthed. There is every possibility of theft of WAPDA material in future as well unless the material is properly housed in sheds and duly walled and guarded by the‑ security staff/Gate keepers. (i) There did occur some surpluses and shortages of material in the Regional Store QESCO, Quetta, but its figures, as pointed out by the Committee constituted by the Chief Executive QESCO are exaggerated one. On the bass of these exaggerated figures, the Chief Executive QESCO has initiated disciplinary cases and recovery proceeding against the Regional Store Manager and other staff, which may be withheld, till such time, the exact shortages and excesses are worked out for which constitution of a Committee comprising, Inventory Control/Store experts from WAPDA Headquarter recommended. (ii) M/s. DECO Lahore have supplied 74 No. sub standard/repaired HT structure to Regional Store QESCO, Quetta, vide Purchase Order No.98/21131‑35 dated 16‑6‑1999, which were not accepted by the Regional Store Manager in 1st instance, but on the recommendations of Chief Engineer (Material Inspection), Lahore and Committee headed by S.F. 1st Quetta, this material is being accepted, which according to warrantee clause is to be replaced by the supplier with the new one. A notice under Warrantee clause of Purchase Order may be issued to manufacture for supply of brand new 71 No. Structures to case of default punitive action against the supplier may be taken under relevant clauses of Purchase Order. (i) Enquiry Committee comprising experts from Inventory Control and Store may be constituted to work out the exact surpluses and shortages of material in Regional Store Quetta and disciplinary/recovery proceedings initiated against officers/officials of Regional Store Quetta may withheld, till finalization of this enquiry. (ii) Proper boundary walls/security gate and sheds may immediately be constructed for Regional Store Quetta to avoid loss/damages to valuable WAPDA material in future. (iii) Due to involvement in irregularities, the Store Keepers of Regional Store Quetta may be replaced with new one, and vacant posts may be got filled immediately. (iv) The stock and issue record may be got maintained properly in Regional Store Quetta to avoid shortage and surplus of material in future. (v) The criminal case registered by local police, may be persuaded by QESCO authorities vigorously to unearth the mafia involved in stealing valuable WAPDA material. (vi) M/s. 'PECO Lahore may be served with a notice under Warrantee clause of Purchase Order No.98/21131‑36 dated 16‑6‑1999 to substitute 74 Nos. brand new structures against damaged/repaired structures lying in the Regional Store Quetta. In case of non compliance, the contract may be cancelled and material may be purchased on the risk and cost of supplier besides confiscating the performance security. (vii) The tender documents, evaluation and Purchase Order of QESCO may be got vetted from Chief Engineer (Dist. Eng), Lahore in order to ensure quality control of the purchased material in future. It will be observed that this Committee did not hold the appellant responsible for the excesses or shortages in the store and inter alia recommended that disciplinary and recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant by C.E.O. QESCO may be withheld till such time another Committee comprising Inventory Control/Store Experts works but the exact storages/excesses. This Inquiry Committee' recommendations were based oft ‑its perception that the excesses/shortages worked out by the Committee constituted by the C.E.O., QESCO were exaggerated ones. The logical corollary after the institution of WAPDA enquiry was that action on the earlier enquiry ordered by C.E.O. QESCO should have been stalled till outcome of the WAPDA Enquiry was known: The removal from service of the appellant before the outcome of the WAPDA Enquiry Committee became available on 3‑2-2001 creates nagging doubts about the credibility of the process. The haste and promptness shown by C.E.O. QESCO lead us to believe that they were not expecting a favourable outcome of the WAPDA Enquiry Committee for the respondent‑Company and precipitated the action against the appellant without waiting for the findings of the WAPDA enquiry. The WAPDA inquiry also noted that despite various requests of the appellant for additional staff to effectively supervise affairs of the Stores, no action was taken.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the appellant was grossly discriminated against vis‑a‑vis other employees connected with Management of the Regional Store. He pointed out that Senior Store Keeper Ainuddin, Assistant Store Manager Siddique Shah and successor of the appellant namely Sher Muhammad were all exonerated. We do not agree with the observation of the learned counsel for the respondents that each involved was dealt with in accordance with the gravity of the offence. What additional gravity was required by the QESCO authorities than the findings of the enquiries conducted by Lt. Col. Naveed Azam Khan mentioned in para 2 of this judgment and the enquiry conducted by WAPDA authorities in which these officials were held responsible for theft and shortages in the store. These officials were directly responsible for the actual operations of the store and the appellant was only the supervisory officer. The management of the Company showed complete apathy and neglect to the recommendations made by the WAPDA Enquiry Committee in sub‑para 3 of its findings to pursue the theft case more vigorously but no heed was paid to it. The appellant had exercised only the remote control over the affairs of the Store but these officers were actually involved in all the store transactions. We, therefore, share the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was discriminated against vis‑a‑vis other officials who though found guilty by the Enquiry Committees were exonerated wherein the appellant was awarded major penalty.

14. Summing up the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were not conducted under the relevant provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and also that the C.E.O. QESCO was not competent authority as per relevant provisions of the Act and Rules to dismiss the appellant as he did not have requisite powers to award major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant and even on merit of the case the appellant was discriminated against vis‑a‑vis other officials of QESCO who also managed the Store and were also found culpable by the first and the third Enquiry Committees. The appellant was indicted for the charge of excesses and shortages in the, store which were not accurate ones as observed by the WAPDA Committee. The WAPDA Committee recommended another Committee comprising experts to accurately assess alleged excess and shortages. This Committee in fact was constituted vide letter dated 21‑2‑2001 but nothing is on record to show whether it initiated the inquiry or not. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant should have waited till the finalization of the report by the Committee constituted on 21-2‑2001. We feel that an officer who earned Pride of Performance award which is an extraordinary achievement was made to suffer because he protested against misdemeanours observed by him in the auction operations and became a bete noire in the eye of the respondent‑Company for his honesty and integrity.

15. On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that the respondent's case suffers from legal infirmities and also fail on merit. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant which culminated into his dismissal vide order dated 13‑1‑2001 were arbitrary, unjust and of no legal consequence. We accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 13‑1‑2001 and reinstate the appellant with effect from the date he was dismissed from service with consequential back‑benefits. The WAPDA Authority may, if they so desire, initiate fresh enquiry proceedings against the appellant by the Committee as constituted vide letter dated 21‑2‑2001 to assess the shortages/excesses occurring in the Store during the tenure of the appellant as Regional Manager Store and take action against him as per law in proportion to his involvement in the SCAM as determined by the de novo proceedings.

16. No order as to costs.

17. Parties be informed. H.B.T./190/FST Appeal accepted.