RIAZ-UL-HAQ Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, BAHAWALPUR

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑These are three petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 10‑5‑1988 of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeals from the order of the departmental authorities calling upon them to make good the loss suffered by the Government.

2. Riaz‑ul‑Haq, petitioner in C.P.S.L.A.. No.565, Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti, petitioner in C.P.S.L.A. No.566, and Muhammad Naeem, petitioner in C.P.S.L.A. No.567 were serving as Assistant Food Controller, Food Grain Inspector and Food Grain Supervisor, respectively, in Bahawalpur Region. During 1983‑84 Scheme wheat weighing 45,787.656 M. Tons was stored in Bini Shells P.R. Centre. The Centre was under the charge of the petitioners. On final clearance a shortage of 395.811 M. Tons was found in the stock. This led to a departmental inquiry against the petitioners. The defence of the petitioners mainly was that the shortage had occurred on account of drying of moisture as well as ineffective fumigation operations resulting in infestation by khapra/susri. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Authorised Officer accepted their defence and absolved them of the charges. However, the Authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and held that if the petitioners had been more dutiful and vigilant, such a large loss would not have occurred. After taking into account the various factors it held them guilty for causing a shortage of 123.430 M. Tons and called upon them to make up the loss. The petitioners preferred a departmental appeal but without any success. They then filed appeals before the Service Tribunal. Their appeals were dismissed by the learned Tribunal after holding that the petitioners were responsible for the loss which they had been asked to make good. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

3. The question whether the petitioners were responsible for causing loss to the Government is one essentially of fact. No substantial question of law of public importance arises for our consideration.

Leave is accordingly refused.

M. B. A./R‑62/S Petition dismissed.