1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. ABDUL RASHID (MEMBER).‑‑Mr. Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Foodgrains Supervisor, Food Department has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1975 against the recovery of loss to Government of Rs.70,823.89. He has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Gujranwala Region and Director Food, Punjab as respondents in this Appeal.

2. A penalty of recovery of Rs.70,823.89 was imposed on the appellant vide order dated 12‑5‑1985 being price of 1563‑17‑0 Mds of wheat, which was found short in his charge while posted as Foodgrains Supervisor, Food Department. The appellant assailed this order through departmental appeal before Director Food, Punjab. The appeal was rejected by the Respondent No. l vide his order dated 21‑12‑1985.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that no regular enquiry was conducted to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the contention of the appellant. He has further submitted that the percentage of shortage 1.2 was too meagre to justify any penalty especially when the period of storage was about one year. Furthermore, the storage was made during the rainy season while the wheat was already wet and had severe attack by 'KHAPRA' and 'SUSRI'. Besides this the godown leaked during rainy season and the fumigants were not supplied to preserve the wheat. The appellant has further submitted that for this shortage he was charge‑sheeted in the year 1977 and he had submitted explanations for the same which according to him were accepted by the competent authority and he was not penalized therefore. Thus, punishing him for the same cause in the year 1985 at a belated stage is arbitrary and the recovery ordered is without any proof.

4. Since the issues raised were important, the recovery of the amount was suspended by this Tribunal on 8th March, 1986 till a final decision of this case.

5. The plea of the appellant, that enquiry was held in 1977 and the charge was dropped, has been denied by the respondent. The appellant has not been able to produce any document or evidence to show that this charge was dropped as a result of earlier enquiry.

6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that since the respondent No.l had withdrawn the earlier recovery order vide Memo dated 3‑4‑1983, new proceedings on the same charge could not be started. The respondent No.l has in his written reply clarified that the recovery orders issued by the DFC Gujrat were withdrawn as the same were issued without proper proceedings And complying with the condition precedent for imposition of recovery. The DFC, Gujrat was in the same memo directed to conduct a proper enquiry and to submit his findings to the competent authority for necessary orders. We find no illegality in these proceedings.

7. It has been next argued on behalf of the appellant that the notice dated 1‑2‑1984 by the DFC, Gujrat states both in its subject as well as in para 2 that it is "charge‑sheet/show‑cause notice" and therefore regular enquiry should have been conducted and not the summary proceedings. We, however, find that the intention of this memo was to issue show‑cause notice wherein the appellant was called to show‑cause notice and reasons as to why he should not be proceeded in the light of the E & D Rules 1975. Furthermore, departmental proceedings in this case have also been taken on this basis. We find that the inclusion of the word 'charge‑sheet' was unnecessary and should have been omitted by the DFC, Gujrat. However, we find that this does not vitiate the proceedings as not only the notice itself was clear but the appellant also took it as a show‑cause notice. Above all he did not urge this point before the Respondent No.2. This also clearly proves that he fully understood the proceedings and no prejudice was caused to him by the use of superfluous words, which should have been scored of.

8. The order dated 12th May, 1985 proceeds on two important factors which could genuinely lead to shortage in stocks. The appellant has stated that a telegram dated 15‑7‑1975 was issued by AFC, Lalamusa to the SDO, PWD, Gujrat stating that the Government godowns have been leaking heavily and requesting for repair of roofs. Since this was not done the result was infestation of stocks and shortage. We have examined this point. The shortage of wheat as per Godown Register started on 17‑7‑1975, i.e. later than the telegram and thus this document, by itself, is not relevant. It should have been followed by more urgent calls, if and when rain fell subsequently. No such evidence has been presented and the plea, therefore, fails. The contention of the appellant that the store was not fumigated due to late arrival of fumigants has also been examined by us. We find from the reports for 30‑7‑1975 and 15‑10‑1975 that fumigation was done (Annexs:S/1 & S/4) in Godown Nos.l and 2 which contained more than 80$ of the wheat at the centre. This belies the claim of the appellant that fumigants were not supplied. This argument does not hold good also for the reason that wheat was not stocked the whole year but fresh stocks remained arriving and being issued round the year as is clear from statements at P.66‑‑73.

9. Above all the percentage shortage was not uniform in all the godowns but differed with each other as is clear from following statement: Godown No. Q/Stored. Q/disposed Excess Shortage. Percentage 1. 30703‑12‑2 Mds. 30301‑ 0‑10 - 492‑11‑8 Md 1.8% 2. 24413‑2‑14 24100‑30‑14 - 312‑12‑0 1.3% 3. 18982‑17‑8 18767‑12‑12 - 215‑4‑12 1.1% 4. 6660‑0‑ 0 6620‑33‑10 - 39‑7‑ 6 0.6% 5. 32095‑17‑2 32490‑35‑2 - 504‑22‑0 1.5% This also repels the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that 1% was minimum shortage.

10. We find that the appellant was negligent in the performance of his duties resulting in shortage and loss to Government.

11. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. S.Q./143/Sr.P Appeal dismissed