1990 PLP 1446 (SCMR)
THE DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMAD, FOODGRAINS SUPERVISOR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1446 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMAD, FOODGRAINS SUPERVISOR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1446 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1446 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1446 (SCMR) (THE DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMAD, FOODGRAINS SUPERVISOR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akhtar Additional Advocate‑General Punjab and Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all the three petitions).
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. 644 of 1986).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. Nos. 683 & 684 of 1986).
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 1989.
- 3. Mr. Muhammad Akbar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that the loss and damage was abnormal and the Authorised Officer had taken a lenient view and the competent authority had made an appropriate levy. The interference by the Tribunal, according to the learned Additional Advocate‑General, was not justified on the facts of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Order of recovery of losses, allegedly caused due to neglect of employee passed by competent Authority was set aside by Service Tribunal‑‑ Decision of Service Tribunal was based substantially on merits of case as revealed from authentic report of Authorised officer prepared by him after taking into consideration all circumstances and prevailing conditions‑‑‑Such an order could not be interfered with by Supreme Court especially when no question of law requiring further examination of case was involved.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners, the Director/Deputy -Director Food, have by three separate Petitions sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the orders of recovery of loss in the storage of wheat caused apparently due to the neglect of the respondents/officials were set aside by the Service Tribunal.
2. Shortage in the storage of procured wheat was detected by the Government whereupon inquiries were held against the functionaries. The storage conditions were defective of which the complaints had been made time and again by these officers and keeping this in view the Authorised Officer recommended that loss to a reasonable extent be written off, as for substantial damage the concerned officers were not responsible. The competent authority, however, enhanced the penalty leviable. The Service Tribunal after examining merits of the case on the report of the Authorised Officer, set aside the order of the recovery passed by the competent authority.
3. Mr. Muhammad Akbar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that the loss and damage was abnormal and the Authorised Officer had taken a lenient view and the competent authority had made an appropriate levy. The interference by the Tribunal, according to the learned Additional Advocate‑General, was not justified on the facts of the case.
4. The circumstances in which the losses or shortages occurred, the extent of responsibility for the same and the conditions prevailing were all taken note of by the Authorised Officer and the decision of the Service Tribunal is based substantially on the view of the facts found established by the Authorised Officer. The storage conditions were far from satisfactory and this has been accepted by all the three authorities who dealt with the matter. The only question was of the apportionment of the responsibility and the Tribunal having determined that, we do not find any question of law arising in these cases such as may require further examination under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Hence leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./D‑64/S Leave refused.