1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman Mi. Muhammad Yousuf and Ch. Abdul Rashid, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman Mi. Muhammad Yousuf and Ch. Abdul Rashid, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.A. Riaz for Appellant.
- A. G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ ‑‑‑R.4(1)(a)(iv)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Recovery of pecuniary loss caused to Government‑‑‑ Assistant Food Controller was imposed penalty of price of empty bags found short in quantity‑‑Plea that appellant was not responsible for shortage because stock of bags remained in custody of Foodgrain Inspector alone who was also charged and imposed same penalty in equal "proportion‑‑Record indicating that bags though received, by Inspector at destination same were received by appellant‑‑Appellant, held, could not escape liability, hence appeal was devoid of merits. (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑‑Appellant should implead necessary parties‑‑Appellant an Assistant Food Controller challenging penalty of price of empty bags found short in quantity‑‑Plea that responsibility of shortage was that of Foodgrain Inspector hence penalty order was not justified‑ ‑Foodgrain Inspector however not impleaded‑‑Foodgrain Inspector, held, was a necessary party because no effective order could be passed in his absence‑‑Appeal, was liable to be dismissed on that score alone. P.R.T.B. v. Tanvir Ahmad 1983 C L C 1165 rel.
Judgment & Decree
IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The relevant facts for the decision of the appeal are that the appellant was posted as Assistant Food Controller PR Centre, Shergar in the year 1984‑85 when a total quantity of 23,487.110 M/Tonnes of wheat (2,47,350 bags) was purchased and stored at the Centre. It carne to the notice of the respondent No.l that a shortage of 3,970 'B' class empty bags (Bardana) had occurred at Shergar Centre. He, therefore, proceeded to serve the appellant and his Foodgrain Inspector i.e. Ijaz Nabi Saleemi with a show‑cause notice dated 1‑1‑1986. They were called upon to show cause why an amount of Rs.55,585 being the price of 3,970 empty bags at the rate of Rs.14 per bag should not be recovered from them. The appellant as well as his Foodgrain Inspector submitted their respective replies.
2. The main plank of the defence of the appellant was that since he was not incharge of the empty bags, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for their loss. The respondent No.l after due consideration of the reply of both the officials proceeded to impose the recovery of amount of Rs.55,580 on them in equal proportion. The order of respondent No.l is dated 13‑1‑1986.
3. The appellant alone filed an appeal while the Foodgrain Inspector deposited his share of the liability. Since the appeal was not decided within statutory period of 90 days, therefore, appellant filed the present appeal in this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
4. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 4‑11‑1986. The respondents have contested the same. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has raised the following points:‑ (i) Firstly, that the appellant is not responsible as practically stocks and bags remained in the custody of Ijaz Nabi Saleemi, Foodgrain Inspector and the appellant was, most of the time, at Baseerpur in connection with rice procurement; and (ii) Secondly, that supply of the bags was throughout received by Ijaz Nabi Saleemi, therefore, the appellant has wrongly been held responsible for the same.
5. The appellant in support of the contention has produced the reports as to the despatch of empty bags from Mughalpura, Lahore. On the other hand, learned District Attorney submitted that both the points raised by the appellant are in fact one and the same thing. The learned District Attorney produced record of the Deputy Director from which it is clear that while the empty bags were received by Ijaz Nabi Saleemi, Foodgrain Inspector from Mughalpura, Lahore but at the destination the same were received by the appellant. The appellant therefore, cannot escape from the liability. The appellant has rightly been held liable for the same and there is no merit in the appeal.
6. The appeal is, also, liable to be dismissed as the appellant has failed to implead all the necessary parties as respondents. The dispute was as to who out of Ijaz Nabi Saleemi and appellant is responsible and accountable for the loss of bags and to what extent. Therefore, the appellant was bound to implead the said Ijaz Nab Saleemi as a respondent.
7. Mr. Ijaz Nabi Saleemi was necessary party because in case we had come to the conclusion that he was responsible for whole loss and the appellant is not liable at all then how this recovery could have been imposed on Ijaz Nabi Saleemi, who has not been impleaded~ a party to the appeal. The law is very clear and strict. We in this behalf may refer to case of P.R.T.B. v. Tanvir Ahmad reported as 1983 C L C 1165. The relevant portion reads as under:‑ "
11. Since Nazar Muhammad was not made a party and we have declined in exercise of our jurisdiction to implead him as a party, we cannot exercise the discretion under Order XLI, rules 4 and 33, C.P. C. and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
12. The appeal having not been properly constituted on account of absence of Nazar Muhammad a necessary party from array of respondents, is incompetent. It is accordingly dismissed with costs."
8. We hold that Ijaz Nabi Saleemi was a necessary party and in his absence, an effective order cannot be made. In this view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The appellants should be careful in future while impleading the respondents in appeal in respect of liabilities. They should implead the necessary parties.
9. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs both on merits as well as being incompetent. A.E. /192/Sr.P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.