1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Rr.4 & 6(3)‑‑Inefficiency‑‑Negligence‑‑Food Department official charged for shortage of wheat in store‑‑Penalty of recovery of shortage imposed‑‑Criteria for remission or reduction in weight after wheat dried by passage of time not explained‑‑Discrimination of giving more allowance in remissions in other cases also not explained‑‑No regular enquiry held to establish alleged negligence/misconduct‑‑Impugned penalty order, in circumstances, set aside by Service Tribunal and remanded case for regular enquiry. Masud Ahmad Riaz for the Appellants. Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents. M/s. Muhammad Sarwar Saleem, Foodgrains Inspector, Abdul Latif Mohal, Assistant Food Controller and Muhammad Akarm Javaid, Foodgrain Inspector have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur and the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of these appeals, the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders regarding, recovery of shortage of foodgrain may be set aside.

3. The cases of these appellants would be disposed of by this single judgment because nature of facts, nature of the cases and impugned orders of recovery of the shortage of foodgrains are common.

4. Brief facts of the cases are that as a result of scrutiny of record, the appellants were found guilty for the loss of 168.895 M. Tons of storage shortage in Wheat Scheme 1979‑80 found short at Centre Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. The shortage was considered unjustified and self created. Accordingly they were issued show‑cause notices for their alleged negligence and misconduct under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and after receipt of their replies, the appellants were found responsible for the shortage and vide order dated 1‑1‑1983 of the Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, they were directed to pay Rs.1,42,835 in equal ratio and quarterly instalments. In addition to order of the recovery of loss the said appellants were also warned to be careful in future. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed departmental appeals which were partly accepted because the Director remitted some recovery and ordered the recovery of Rs.133,963.50 from the said three appellants in equal proportion. Hence these appeals.

5. At the time of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants before arguing the cases on merits has stressed his point on the legal issue. For instance the learned counsel for the appellants contended that according to Food Department's Delegation of Power Rules, authority in case of A.F.C., Foodgrain Inspector and Foodgrain Supervisor is the Deputy Director Food of Region. The learned counsel for the appellants added that the Authorised Officer is the D.F.O. of concerned District vide the same Rules. The learned counsel for the appellants further stated that Deputy Director Fond in the instant cases of appeal used powers of the Authorised Officer and issued show‑cause notices to the appellants, which was entirely illegal being abuse of powers. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the cases, reported as 1980 P L C (C.S) 524; Shafiq Ahmad v, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, 1977 P L C (C. S) 1981; Muhammad Akram v. Finance Secretary, Pakistan and 1983 P L C (C. S) 388, Atta‑ur‑Rehman v. Commissioner of Income‑tax, Rawalpindi. The learned counsel for the appellants also stated that no enquiries were held in the instant Cases which were necessary. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the cases Nos: 304/2005 of 1982, 305/1982 and 946/11/99 of 1984 decided on 1‑4‑1985. On merits the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the order of the Director is based on conjectures because the Director Food neither ascertained correct percentage of dried wheat nor of the dust and instead made the sweeping remarks. The learned counsel for the appellants concluded his arguments while stating that discrimination has been made regarding the shortage and quoting the instance, he stated that allowance was given to the extent of 5$ which becomes upto one per cent in total about the bins. So far as the open ganjies are concerned allowance of 2.5$ was given for two years but in other cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, allowance was given 2$ per year. No criteria for working out the shortages has been given.

6. The learned Deputy District Attorney as well as the Litigation Officer of the Food Department conceded the legal objection of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Deputy Director had indeed used powers of the Authorised Officer who was actually the D . F . C . of the District vide Food Department Delegation of Powers Rules. On merits of the case the learned District Attorney too or for that matter the Litigation Officer of the Food Department, Bahawalpur Region could not explain as to how the shortage is to be worked out and what is criteria of remission of reduction in weight of wheat after it is dried by passage of time. Similarly the learned Deputy District Attorney as well as the said Litigation Officer also could not explain about discrimination pointed out for giving more allowance in other cases compared to the appellants.

7. I have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned D.D.A. for the respondents assisted by the Litigation Officer of the Food Department. I have also perused the relevant record including the departmental comments. I am of the considered opinion that indeed the perusal of Delegation of. Powers Rules of the Food Department, copy of which is on the record of this file, the Authorised Officer in cases of the appellants was the D. F. C. and not the Deputy Director Food. Since instead of D.F.C. the Deputy Director Food acted as Authorised Officer, this would knock out the very bottom of the case i.e. the impugned orders. This objection is fully supported by the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants cited above. Similarly in the instant cases neither enquiry has been held' to establish the negligence and misconduct of the appellants nor speaking orders have been recorded to determine as to how the remission of recoveries were worked out and what was the justification for discrimination with other cases?

8. Hence, the appeals are accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remanded for regular enquiry against the appellants. However, there will be no orders as to costs. A.E./80/S.Tr Appeals accepted.