1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑‑ Muhammad Iqbal Farooq has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government Punjab, Communications and Works Department, Lahore, the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Highway Department, 2‑Lake Road, Lahore the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha and the Superintending Engineer, 3rd Provincial Building Circle, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has, prayed that the order be passed to cancel the illegal order for imposing penalty of recovery of Rs.34,590 and the stoppage of 3 years increments without future effect issued by Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, vide his Order No. 162, dated 9‑12‑1979.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been working as Sub‑Engineer (previously designated as an overseer) in Brick Kiln Sub‑Division, Lahore. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by S.E., 3rd Lahore Provincial Circle, Lahore vide order, dated 2‑9‑1967, wherein the appellant was found responsible for the loss of Rs.34,590.70 due to tempering with the indent No. 79/764 and also not obtaining acknowledgment of the contractor on three indents i.e. Nos. 79/764, 91/764 and 96/764. The appellant protested against this show‑cause notice vide his letter, dated 15‑9‑1967. Also, on the request of the appellant, another Enquiry Officer, Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Qureshi was appointed to hold the enquiry. The enquiry lingered on. Yet another Enquiry Officer, Syed Faiz Omar was appointed by the Chief Engineer, Highway Department vide his order, dated 18‑4‑1972. However, this enquiry officer was also changed and enquiry was entrusted to Mr. Abdul Karim, Design Officer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Highway Department, Lahore, vide Chief Engineer, Highway, Lahore order, dated 25‑1‑1979 to finally probe into the matter. The enquiry was completed by this Enquiry Officer and he submitted his enquiry report to respondent No.3. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha issued show‑cause notice to the appellant vide his order, dated 19‑6‑1979 as to why the recovery of Rs.34,590 should not be made from him alongwith stoppage of three years increments with future effect. The reply was submitted by him on 4‑7‑1979. The appellant was also heard in person tin 24‑11‑1979. The appellant was imposed the following punishments vide order, dated 9‑12‑1979 passed by the respondent No.3:‑ "(i) Recovery of Rs. 34,590 on account of cost of 781 tons slack. This amount is to be recovered from him as arrear of Land Revenue. (ii) Stoppage of 3 years increments without future effect." The appellant filed a civil suit in the civil Court, Lahore against this order of the Superintending Engineer. On 13‑9‑1980 the Hon'ble Court observed that this case be taken up with the Provincial Service Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been made responsible for three indents totalling to 781 tons of slack coal which was actually issued and received by the contractor before taking over the charge by the appellant. These indents were drawn under the order of S.D.O. without value simply to complete the process to watch recovery of the slack coal issued by the predecessor of the appellant before his taking over. Thus, the appellant is not at all responsible for the issue and acknowledgment of the slack coal which had already been issued by his predecessor. The appellant had only prepared the covering indents, as per order of the S.D.O., to complete the formalities for completion of the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the action of the departmental authorities to punish the appellant for the coal which had already been issued by another officer before his taking over, is uncalled for, unjustified and unlawful. He has prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, has produced the three disputed indents, 91/764, 96/764 and 79/764 (with interpolation) at the time of hearing of this case to show that these indents are not the covering indents and have been issued by the appellant himself in lieu of the slack coal issued to the contractor but no acknowledgment has been obtained from the contractor. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that there is no indication of any sort on these indents that these indents are the covering indents for the slack coal issued by the appellant's predecessor before his taking over. The learned District Attorney on the basis of this record, has refuted and rebutted the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant. He has further submitted that the appellant has been only held responsible for the slack coal which was issued by him personally, was not get acknowledged from the contractor and entire responsibility of issue of this coal lies on him. Thus, the appellant has been correctly held responsible for the loss of the coal which he has failed to account for.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. The indents under dispute have been produced before us at the time of hearing of this case by the respondents. The entries on the indents make it clear that these were made by the appellant himself and the slack coal issues on these indents, have not been got acknowledged from the contractor. Also, there is no indication on these indents to prove that these indents are the covering indents issued by the appellant in lieu of the slack coal issued by his predecessor before his taking over and has been done under the orders of the higher authorities. Thus, the counsel or the appellant and the appellant, have failed to satisfy us that the appellant is not responsible for the loss of the coal so held by the departmental authorities. We have also perused the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Abdul Karim, at Appendix '1'. The Enquiry Officer has clearly held responsible the appellant for the loss of 781 tons of coal. It has also been mentioned by the Enquiry officer in the last para. of his enquiry report that Mr. Abdul Razzaq Contractor invoked arbitration and consequently award was made by the arbitrator for payment of 781 tons coal, not acknowledged by the Contractor. Thus, on arbitration the appellant has also been held responsible for 781 tons of coal. In the presence of this evidence and facts of the case we are o f the considered opinion that the appellant has been rightly held responsible for the loss to the Government.

7. The learned District Attorney, has also raised legal objections But, in view of our findings on the merits of the case, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said legal objections.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.