2005 PLP 1355 (SCMR)

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 16-12-2002, passed in Appeal No.1758 of 1997.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner proceeded on casual leave w.e.f. 1-4-1981 and after that remained absent from duty for many years. The departmental proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 13-8-1984. On appeal, the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Faisalabad, reinstated him in service w.e.f. 3-3-1988. During petitioner's long absence from duty without handing over the charge of his section, the then S.D.O. Tubewell Operation, Sub-Division Nankana directed Raza Hussain Shah, Sub-Engineer to look after the work of the petitioner. He also issued notices to the petitioner to hand over his charge or resume duty but without any response from him, on 27-7-1981 he along with Raza Hussain Shah Sub-Engineer conducted a physical verification of the open stores of Nabi Pur Section. However, some store was under lock and key. The record was also in the custody of the petitioner, therefore, it was not possible for the successor of the petitioner to take over the complete charge of the store. As the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known for a long time, the new Sub-Division Officer of the Sub-Division approached the Local Administration and got the locked store/godown unlocked on 17-7-1984 in the presence of Resident Magistrate, staff of concerned police station and departmental officials. A list of the available store was prepared. Subsequently, on the instructions of XEN the shortage was determined on the basis of the difference in the stock articles which the petitioner had taken over in his charge in the year, 1979. The cost of missing material was calculated to Rs.4,18,

703. As the petitioner was reinstated in the service, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The Superintending Engineer SCARP-I, Circle Lahore, while acting as Authorized Officer, issued charge-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. XEN Stores and Workshop Division, Sheikhupura, conducted the enquiry and observed that the charges had been proved against the petitioner. Authorized Officer recommended major penalty against the petitioner, and the Senior Most Staff Officer/XEN (Operation) Irrigation, Faisalabad, Zone Faisalabad, while acting as Authority imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of recovery of Rs.4,18,703 as the cost of the missing store articles. Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal to the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Faisalabad Zone, who turned down the same vide order, dated 2-4-1997.

3. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment impugned herein. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with law and is based on misreading and non-reading of the material available on record; that previously the petitioner was reinstated in service by the then Chief Engineer and was exonerated and in the subsequent inquiry he has been penalized; that the petitioner in compliance with the order of the Court, dated 24-6-2003, had deposited the amount of Rs.42,586.96 in this Court, which may be transmitted to the concerned authorities for adjustment to the amount which is yet to be paid by him; that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspects of the case in true perspective while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.

5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the material available on record. Admittedly, petitioner remained absent from his duty for a long time without obtaining leave as well as without handing over the charge, which is basic requirement of the service rules. The Inquiry Officer after holding inquiry rightly found him guilty to the effect that due to his negligence Government Exchequer suffered a loss of Rs.4,18,

703. Admittedly, this charge was proved against the petitioner because the authority unlocked the store/premises with the help of a Magistrate, staff of police station concerned and departmental officials. A list of available store was prepared in their presence. Petitioner has intentionally caused loss to the Government and he was rightly found guilty and was ordered to pay the cost of missing items. The impugned judgment is the result of proper appreciation of material and is not open to exception. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: "(8) The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant had the charge of Government stores. During his long absence his immediate senior Officer physically verified open stock i.e. S.D.O. within a period of 3 months of the disappearance and subsequently a Judicial Officer verified the articles stores under lock and key. This verification disclosed the shortage of certain articles. Government thus suffered huge loss because of the shortage of these articles. No one, other than the petitioner, can be held responsible for this loss because the charge had remained with him and the departmental authorities had taken due precautions to verify the stocks in his absence."

6. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal has dealt with each and every aspect of the case, and there is no misreading or non-reading of the material or misconstruction of law. Moreover, no substantial question of law of general public importance, as envisaged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is involved in this case.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined. However, an amount of Rs.42,580.96, if deposited by the petitioner, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 24-6-2003, may be transmitted to the quarter concerned against the outstanding amount, which he has yet to pay. M.H./Z-22/S Petition dismissed. ***