P L D 2002 Supreme Court 723 (PLP)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.‑‑‑Zafar Iqbal Qureshi has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12‑9‑2001 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.591‑D of 2001 filed by the petitioner which was dismissed upholding the decision of .the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby the respondent's suit for damages against him was decreed to the extent of Rs.50,000, setting aside the judgment dated 27‑7‑1998 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan, who had dismissed the suit.

2. Muhammad Ali, a Superintendent in the office of Deputy Director of Industries, Multan, on 26‑11‑1991, applied for 365 days' Leave Preparatory to Retirement (L.P.R.). He was, in fact, to retire on superannuation on 13‑6‑1997. Before that the competent Authority accepted his L.P.R., he, on 26‑1‑1992, applied for withdrawal of his application for L.P.R. On 17‑5‑1992, the Deputy Director Industries accepted his application for L.P.R. with the condition that if the plaintiff could produce any rule that before the acceptance of L.P.R. he could withdraw his application, his case would be reconsidered. The plaintiff produced a letter dated 6‑7‑1981 of the Government of Punjab, Finance Department, whereupon his case was reconsidered and the L.P.R. granted to him on 17‑5‑1992 was cancelled vide order dated 19‑7‑1992. Muhammad Ali was thus, deemed to have continued in service. Copy of the aforesaid letter of cancellation of his L. P. R. was forwarded to petitioner Zafar Iqbal Qureshi, who was the District Accounts Officer, GAD‑II, Multan.

3. Muhammad Ali, Superintendent, having continued in service submitted his pay bill for the months of June and July, 1992 before the aforesaid District Accounts Officer. The latter returned the bill with objection that previous pay bill and report of acceptance of L.P.R. be produced. Muhammad Ali resubmitted the bill on 15‑8‑1992 by answering to the objection. The District Accounts Officer again raised objection that the L.P.R. once accepted could not be withdrawn. The pay bills were returned to the plaintiff, who sent a legal notice to the District Accounts Officer on 14‑9‑1992.

4. At this stage the District Accounts Officer resorted to the Accountant‑General, Punjab. Muhammad Ali also filed a complaint before the Accountant‑General Punjab regarding the high‑handedness of the District Accounts Officer, who in turn, admonished the defendant and directed him to release the salary of the plaintiff because his application for L.P.R. had rightly been withdrawn in the light of the policy letter of the Government of Punjab. The plaintiff again submitted his pay bill on 23‑11‑1992 which was halfheartedly sanctioned on 25‑11‑1992. For almost five months, the Superintendent was made to face hardship due to unreasonable, unjustified and sadistic attitude of the District Accounts Officer. Due to this financial hardship as well as mental torture, Muhammad Ali brought a suit for damages of Rs.1,00,000 which was decreed to the extent of Rs.50,000 by the first Appellate Court as well as the High Court.

5. The above narration of facts which are derived from the documentary evidence on record is more than sufficient to prove the highhandedness of the petitioner/judgment‑debtor. He in his capacity as District Accounts Officer should in the first place have been aware of the policy letter dated 6‑7‑1981 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Punjab almost ten years prior to the present dispute. Though his feigned ignorance cannot be pressed into service to justify his negative attitude, yet he should have retrained from being adamant when such policy letter was brought to his notice. Still he abstained from being helpful and instead created unjustified hurdles in release of pay to which the petitioner having continued in service was otherwise entitled. Another aspect of the case is that when once the competent Authority had cancelled his L.P.R. and, once the plaintiff had continued in service, the District Accounts Officer had no authority to raise objection challenging the very authority of the competent Officer.

6. In the circumstances of the present case, the two Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion. The quantum of damages is a question of fact on which also the two Courts have concurred and hence we shall not interfere.

7. While parting, we must remark that the Government officials dealing with the rights of the people and other Government officials are not supposed to have a negative and sadistic attitude merely to satisfy their false egos. We strongly deprecate the conduct of the petitioner due to which a Government servant drawing small salary in BPS‑16 was forced to face monetary loss as well as mental torture. We appreciate the civic sense of the respondent who did not feel contented upon the sanction of the bill and initiated to ask for damages. It was a healthy sign to make others realise the consequences of their omissions to perform an act which they are legally as well as morally bound to perform. With these remarks, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./Z‑106/S Petition dismissed.