1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Fazal Rasul, ex‑Foodgrain Supervisor, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has implea ded the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha and the District Food Controller, Faisalabad as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 25th April, 1982 to the extent it relates to the appellant be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Food grain Supervisor at P. R. Centre, Darul Ehsan, District Faisalabad. Mr. Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector of the said P. R. Centre, reported to the District Food Controller, Faisalabad that a theft had been com mitted at the aforementioned P. R. Centre, at the night between 27th/ 28th October, 1981 and 4,400 B Class empty gunny bags (number reduced to 4,167 in his subsequent statement before the District Food Controller, Faisalabad) had been stolen. Case was referred by the District Controller, Faisalabad, after recording, on 27th January, 1982 the statements of Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector, and the appellant, to the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, with the recommendation of imposing of major penalties on them. The latter after holding both of them at fault and guilty of misconduct passed the impugned order, dated 25th April, 1982 wherein the appellant was dismissed from service and debarred from future employment in Government Departments or organi zation and Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector was reduced in his time scale by two stages permanently. The District Food Controller, faisalabad, was directed to get a case registered at the relevant Police Station in respect of the theft which had taken place on the date mentioned above. Recoveries of Government property were also to be made from all concerned. The appellant filed an appal, dated 15th May, 1982 before the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore which is still pending and has not been decided so far. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. The case has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant on the main plea that the action of the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, respondent No. 2 is dis criminatory. In the present case Mr. Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector and the appellant were held responsible for the theft of gunny bags, though Mr. Muhammad Yar, Food0‑rains Inspector was incharge of the Centre and he was responsible for proper watch and ward of the Centre, appointment of Chowkidar etc. He has been awarded punishment of reduction in his time scale by two stages permanently while the appel lant has been dismissed from service and debarred for future employment. The punishment so awarded to the appellant is not at all justified as he was not incharge of the Centre and effective measures for the safe custody of the stores of the said Centre were to be taken by the Foodgrains Inspector, Mr. Muhammad Yar and not by the appellant. Furthermore, the superior officers have also failed to register the case with the police in time, though the theft was brought to their notice at appropriate time. If the case would have been registered in time with the police and followed up properly the culprits would have been traced out. Concluding, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that .the punishment awarded to the appellant is uncalled for, unjustified and be quashed.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, has submitted that the appellant, Fazal, Rasul, Foodgrains Supervisor was responsible for the loss. The stock register was also put up to show that both the accused officials i. e. Mr. Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector and the appellant were responsible for the safe custody of the gunny bags which were stolen. The theft has occurred due to the absence of the appellant from duty and not taking proper measures for watch and ward as well. Thus, this has resulted to the loss to the Government and the appellant is very much guilty of gross misconduct of absence from duty, negligence and has been punished correctly and lawfully.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant is guilty of misconduct in dereliction of his duty which resulted in the theft of the gunny bags and loss to the Government. It is also evident from the record that the appellant alongwith the Food grains Inspector, Mr. Muhammad Yar had failed to register the case with the police and follow up the matter. It is also worth mentioning that the superior officer i.e. District Food Controller, Faisalabad also failed to get the case registered with the police though it came to his notice as well.

7. On scrutiny of this case, however, it is revealed that the punishment awarded to Mr. Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector and the appellant is discriminatory. The Foodgrains Inspector was overall incharge of the Centre who was required to make arrangements for the safe custody of the stock and also watch the work of the appellant. Thus, no doubt that the Foodgrains Inspector (Muhammad Yar) and the Food grains Supervisor (appellant) are responsible for the loss but I consider that the punishment so awarded is discriminatory. Mr. Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector who had greater responsibility in the matter has been awarded much less punishment than the appellant which is not a justifiable action.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that the appellant is guilty of the misconduct but the punishment awarded is discriminatory. I direct that the punishment awarded to the appellant be modified to the same as given to Mr. Muhammad Yar, Foodgrains Inspector i. e. reduction in his time scale by two stages. The impugned order dated, 25th April, 1982 of Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha is modified to the above extent only. Thus, the appellant will be re‑instated in service from the date of his dismissal. There will be no order as to costs. A.E Appeal partly accepted.