MUHAMMAD YAR, FOODGRAIN INSPECTOR vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
This matter arises from civil petitions filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which partly allowed a civil servant's appeal by setting aside his dismissal from service while maintaining a penalty of recovery of financial loss and treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal questions involve whether the penalty of recovery of loss was compatible with the findings, whether the grounds for penalty were beyond the scope of the original charge-sheet, and whether the alleged shortage was negligible. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the civil servant and the departmental authorities to examine these contentions and to consider the propriety of remitting the penalty of dismissal.
- Whether a disciplinary penalty of recovery of loss can be sustained when it is based on grounds not forming the subject-matter of the original charge-sheet?
- Whether a minor percentage of wheat stock shortage in official storage can be deemed negligible in departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty of dismissal while maintaining the recovery of loss?
ORDER
' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- This order will govern Civil Petitions Nos.3223-L of 2001 and 3553-L of 2001.
The petitioner, an official of Food Department, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The Deputy Director Food (Authority) vide order, dated 12-2-2000, dismissed him from service besides directing recovery of an amount to Rs,4,37,260. On appeal, the Director Food maintained the said order. The learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 4-9-2001 however, partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the penalty of recovery of loss but set aside dismissal of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal further directed that the intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner, civil servant as well as departmental authorities have sought leave to appeal.
2. The Inquiry Officer as well as Authorized Officer found that the charges against the petitioner did not stand proved. The Authority however, disagreed with the report and recommendation aforesaid on the following grounds:--- "(i) He fumigated the stocks twice without supervision of a Gazetted Officer as well as approval of the competent authority.
(ii) At the time of receipt of stocks at 170/9-L, from Iqbal Nagar and Kassowal, he did not report any damages or deterioration in the stocks.
(iii) As per instructions, he should have started dispatches from godowns one by one whereas desatches were started by him simultaneously. In the consolidated statement he has shown no shortage in the godowns wherein stocks remained stored for a period of 23 months. Whereas shortage has been shown in the godown where period of storage calculated to 34 months. Such a heavy shortage of 166.242 M. Tons is not possible in the circumstances. He has failed to prepare SF- 26 and submit to D.F.C. Office within a period of 7 days after the clearance of each godown which is against the Government instructions. The conceal the this fact, he has given no date under his signature of SF-26 (Storage Results)."
3. The learned counsel has referred to para.11 of the judgment to contend that the aforesaid findings and even the penalty of recovery of loss are not compatible and the reasons adduced by the learned Tribunal in maintaining the penalty of recovery of loss noted in para.10 were not the subject-matter of the charge-sheet. According to the charge-sheet, the petitioner was proceeded against on the following allegations:--- "(i) You were posted at P.R. 170/9-L for the Scheme 1986-87, you caused a godown shortage of 166.242 M. Tons wheat of Government loss.
(ii) You failed to perform your duties in the manner as prescribed by the Government which shows your negligence towards performing duties in best interest of the Government.
(iii) The said godown shortage tantamounts to corruption by you in your interest with some ulterior motive."
4. He further submits that Charge No,1 was only a statement of fact, charge No,2 was vague and unspecific while there was no evidence whatsoever of any corruption nor there was any finding of the Authority to this effect. He further submits that the total wheat stored was 16,747.32 M. Tons while the total loss was 166.262 M. Tons which was even less than 1% and was, thus, negligible.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are inclined to grant leave to consider the contentions noted in paras.3 and 4 above. Since leave has been granted on the petition of the civil servant, leave is also granted in the petition of the departmental authorities to consider whether it was a fit case for remitting the penalty of dismissal by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. ##TSE##