DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB Versus RASHID AHMAD, FOODGRAINS SUPERVISOR

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J .‑‑‑The petitioners, the Director/Deputy -Director Food, have by three separate Petitions sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the orders of recovery of loss in the storage of wheat caused apparently due to the neglect of the respondents/officials were set aside by the Service Tribunal.

2. Shortage in the storage of procured wheat was detected by the Government whereupon inquiries were held against the functionaries. The storage conditions were defective of which the complaints had been made time and again by these officers and keeping this in view the Authorised Officer recommended that loss to a reasonable extent be written off, as for substantial damage the concerned officers were not responsible. The competent authority, however, enhanced the penalty leviable. The Service Tribunal after examining merits of the case on the report of the Authorised Officer, set aside the order of the recovery passed by the competent authority.

3. Mr. Muhammad Akbar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that the loss and damage was abnormal and the Authorised Officer had taken a lenient view and the competent authority had made an appropriate levy. The interference by the Tribunal, according to the learned Additional Advocate‑General, was not justified on the facts of the case.

4. The circumstances in which the losses or shortages occurred, the extent of responsibility for the same and the conditions prevailing were all taken note of by the Authorised Officer and the decision of the Service Tribunal is based substantially on the view of the facts found established by the Authorised Officer. The storage conditions were far from satisfactory and this has been accepted by all the three authorities who dealt with the matter. The only question was of the apportionment of the responsibility and the Tribunal having determined that, we do not find any question of law arising in these cases such as may require further examination under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Hence leave to appeal is refused.

H.B.T./D‑64/S Leave refused.