1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(v) Amount of security of bardana was deducted from the bills of the wheat. (vi) That 2,100 bags were issued to one Abdul Rasheed against the security of 200 bags. (vii) That 3,300 bags were issued to one Muhammad Ramzan without security. (viii) That you were transferred to Sehjra centre but during inspection on 12-6-1986 you were found absent."

2. After completing the formalities the Authority/Respondent No. 2/Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region imposed vide order dated 29-12-1986 the penalty of reducing the appellant's time-scale by one stage. The appeal filed by him before the Director Food, Punjab was also rejected vide order dated fi-2-1988 and hence this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney have been heard at length on various aspects, legal and factual, of this appeal and the relevant record produced before the Tribunal has also been consulted. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant has been punished for certain lapses on his part which are otherwise prevalent in the Food Department on a large scale. He, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal may set aside the impugned orders among others on the following grounds: (a) These lapses, which are quite common in the department are a direct result of lack of necessary equipment, articles, accommodation, transportation etc. and yet the appellant has been singled out for some minor lapses. (b) The appellant has been prejudiced in his defence as a copy of the recommendations of the Authorised Officer were made available to him at a belated stage. (c) The punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh as no loss was caused to Government.

4. The Enquiry Officer had in his findings reported that the accused was guilty of all the charges except the charges mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 of the charge-sheet. In fact, the accused official had confessed some of these allegations stating he had committed these irregularities only in order to safeguard the Government interests. On the other hand, it has been contended in the written -objections submitted by the departmental authorities that whatever be the pious intentions of the appellant, these were clearly against Government instructions and as such he is guilty of overdoing things and his action was unauthorised.

5. It is more than evident that the appellant has been discriminated against and treated rather harshly. The tribunal's attention has been drawn to the case of one Malik Nasir-ud-Din, AFC, Shergarh, District Okara, who in similar circumstances was treated differently. The allegations against this official were almost similar in nature. It is stated that Malik Nasir-ud-Din, A.F.C. was posted at Wheat Purchase Centre Bedian, District Kasur for procurement of wheat during scheme 1986-87. During the course of an inspection it was noticed that he had issued Bardana to the Arhtis without security and without stencilling. The plea taken by this official before the appellate authority i.e. the Director Food, Punjab was also the same i.e. that "the officials posted at other surrounding centres were also maintaining similar practice and no one has been proceeded against." The appellate authority found no justifiction, to agree with the Authorised Officer/Deputy Director Food and accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Authorised Officer for fresh enquiry vide orders dated 20-2-1988. As a result of the de novo proceedings recovery of an amount of! Rs.7,802.48 was imposed on the accused official. While again accepting the appeal against the fresh order the Director Food, Punjab/appellate authority observed as under:-- "I feel that in the busy days of purchase of wheat, the officials cannot be expected to sit on judgment of such issues and have generally to act in good faith on the statement of people and in the rural areas most of the people including the dealers are the land owners. To single out one official from whole the Province does not appear to be justified when there is sufficient scope to give him benefit of doubt."

6. Whatever be his intentions it is obvious that the appellant has not been quite discreet in the pursuit of his main objective i.e. procurement of wheat and in the process he has overlooked certain instructions of Government. However, there are also mitigating circumstances such as the fact that others in the Department were also committing the same mistakes and a certain allowance has also to be given to the fact that he was careful enough to ensure that no loss was caused to Government. In view of the action taken by the Director Food in Malik Nasir-ud-Din's case it looks anomalous that he should treat the appellant differently, especially when the gap in passing the two orders is only of 13 days. The result is that the appeal succeeds and the impugned orders are set aside with no orders as to costs.

7. While recording his orders dated 20-2-1988 in Malik Nasir-ud-Din's case the Director Food Punjab had also directed that the record of other surrounding wheat purchase centres should be checked up to find out the differences in the procedure adopted for the purchase of wheat so as to find out if similar recovery had been imposed upon other officials at other centres. It is hoped that the Department must have completed this exercise and in the light of the results obtained and in order to make the existing Wheat Scheme more rational and practicable, suitable adjustments must have been made in it. M.Y.H./334/Sr. P Appeal allowed.