PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 2nd February, 2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby appeal filed by respondent has been accepted.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent faced departmental proceedings in respect of shortage of 321.940 (241.838 + 80.502) Metric Ton of wheat on account of which the Government sustained heavy financial loss. The charge was repudiated by the respondent. The Inquiry Officer appointed by Authorized Officer vide report, dated 16th October, 1989 exonerated him from the charge.

' The report of Inquiry Officer was endorsed by the Authorized Officer vide recommendation dated 4th December, 1989 by assigning following reasons that respondent is not responsible for the shortage of wheat:---

(a) The stocks were stored in open in shape of Ganjies.

(b) The stocks remained stored for a long period due to non-availability of dispatch allocation well in time.

(c) As the stocks stored in open, the fumigation operation could not successful. However, all the Ganjies were properly covered with tarpaulins and malathies spray to the stocks were, carried-out but this operation could not be proved fruitful.

(d) The condition of stocks had been repeatedly intimated by the Incharge Centre and further transmitted to the Regional Office with the request to grant allocation for immediate dispatches of the stocks which was heavily infested by Susri/Khapra.

(e) Due to long storage and non-disposal of the stocks, the bags lost their weight.

(f) At the time of storage of the stacks were moistured which also gave shortage due to belated disposal.

' However, the authority did not agree with the recommendation of the Authorized Officer and by awarding him punishment vide order, dated 6th February, 1990 directed the recovery of Rs,2,83,619.04 besides debarring him from promotion for two years. Respondent after availing departmental remedies preferred appeal before the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance which has been accepted vide impugned judgment, dated 2nd February, 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegation of shortage of wheat has rightly been alleged against the respondent, and the authority under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Rules 1975) competently awarded him punishment.

4. We are not inclined to subscribe to the view point of learned counsel for the petitioner because if the authority is not satisfied with the report of Inquiry Officer or recommendation of the Authorized Officer it may direct for fresh inquiry after assigning the reasons in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules 1975 if case has been submitted to it under Rule 6(4) and Rule 7-A of the Rules 1975, otherwise the authority has no independent jurisdiction to award punishment as it has been held in the case of Government of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department and another v. Abdul Sattar 1990 SCM R 995. Therefore, in our considered opinion the Service Tribunal by applying the correct law on the subject has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and impugned judgment being un-exceptionable admits no interference by this Court.

' Thus for the foregoing reasons petitions is dismissed and leave declined.