2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14th July, 2003 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.902 of 2003.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent being Assistant Food Controller was proceeded against departmentally for the following irregularities, noticed by the Secretary Food at the time of his visit of Purchase Centre, Pakpattan, on 30th August, 2000, where he was posted at that time as its incharge:‑‑ (i) You being Incharge of the Centre, were unaware of the fumigation process and could not tell the details of the A.P. tablets used for fumigation of godowns. (ii) The cleanliness of the godown was highly unsatisfactory. (iii) The infestation in the gunjies have been started due to lack of supervision. This constitutes grave misconduct and inefficiency.

3. The allegations were denied by the respondent on the averments that no loss has been caused to the Department on account of non cleanliness of the Godowns and for having started infestation in the gunjies. Admittedly neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Authorised Officer of the Authority attended to this aspect of the case and vide order dated 11th July, 2001, major penalty was imposed upon him under rule 4(b)(i) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999 and lie was reverted from the post of Assistant Food Controller to the post of Food grain Inspector, Department appeal filed by him failed as the same was rejected by the Director Food on 21st March, 2003. However, appeal submitted by respondent before the Tribunal was allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

4. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General contended that as respondent was found guilty for the misconduct and inefficiency, therefore, Inquiry Officer rightly imposed the major penalty of reduction in rank upon him but the Service Tribunal without any lawful authority and jurisdiction has interfered in the order dated 21st March, 2003.

5. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate‑General and have also gone through impugned judgment carefully. Operative para. therefore is reproduced hereinbelow:‑‑ "

5. No doubt the appellant had admitted that the presence of Secretary Food at the time of fumigation operation made him nervous and he could not properly answer the questions posed to him. However, his stance that no loss in wheat stock was caused due to the, attack by moths, as no complaint was received from the, recipients has not been taken into consideration, rather ignored, by the authority as well as the appellant authority. The effect of ignoring this important aspect would be that the stance adopted by the appellant would be considered to be correct. This being the position at the most, negligence of slight nature can be attributed to the appellant for not answering the queries of the Secretary, which I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that penalty of reduction in rank was extremely on the harsh side." It may be noted, that as per the definition of misconduct and 'inefficiency' under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999, the respondent, in view of above charges, cannot be held accused for either of them. It is also to be noted that on account of allegations as have been alleged against him, no loss to public exchequer or the Government has occurred. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in such view .of the matter, if respondent, for any reason, could not answer satisfactorily about the fumigation process etc., he would not be penalized by imposing major penalty. Besides it, as far as remaining two other charges i.e. non-clean lines of the godowns and infestation in the gunjies etc. are concerned, no loss admittedly has been caused to the Government on that account, therefore, for such reason, the Provincial Service Tribunal was quite justified to interfere in the order of the Departmental Authority. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined. M.H/D‑16/S Petition dismissed.