1988 PLC(CS) 107

Muhammad Saeed, Block Officer, Children Park, Lal Sohanra National Park, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore, and the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur Forest Division, Bahawalpur, as respondents, against the order dated 6‑10‑1981 passed by respondent No.2 by which the appellant has been awarded five punishments simultaneously. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he may be exonerated with all the past benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the certain huts of tenants of Basti Guddan were burnt. They applied to the S.D.F.O. Lal Sohanra that they should be allowed to cut woods to enable them to build up their huts. It was ordered on 23‑3‑1981, that they would get this wood from Chak Katora. It seems that these persons on 26‑6‑1981, came to field No.36, Block No.2 and cut down large number of Sofaida trees. This matter came to the knowledge of Forest Guards namely Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Aslam, but they failed to take notice of this fact. However, they informed the appellant of the facts in the evening. The matter remained in dorement and ultimately a case was registered by the appellant and a damage report was also prepared by him. However, anonymous application was received which resulted into initiation of inquiry against M/s‑ Muhammad Latif, Muhammad Aslam, and the appellant and as a result of inquiry, it was held that all the three persons were equally responsible for this act of negligence, which resulted in a loss of Rs.9,420 to the Forest Department. The appellant was inflicted with the following penalties:‑

(i) Imposition of recovery amount to Rs.9,420 upon both the official (on 50 : 50 basis) i.e. the loss sustained to Government and ordered recovery @ 1/3rd of their respective monthly salaries.

(ii) Reduction in pay to the minimum of time scale.

(iii) Stoppage of two annual increments with future effect.

(iv) Suspension period to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.

(v) Censure.

He filed appeal before the departmental authority which was rejected on 14‑4‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although no regular inquiry was conducted in this case yet the preliminary inquiry held all the three officials viz. Abdul Latif, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Saeed (appellant) equally guilty of negligence, therefore, the act of respondent by merely imposing penalties on the appellant was an act of discrimination as he had let of Abdul Latif without any punishment. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the legality of the order by submitting that in case of imposition of major penalty, a formal charge‑sheet was necessary which has not been done in this case and also the Authorised Officer has acted as Authority and imposed penalty upon the appellant. It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the matter came to the notice of M/s. Abdul Latif and Muhammad Aslam on the very day but they did not inform the appellant who was their supervisory officer and it was only in the evening that they apprised him all the situation when the woods were taken away from the place. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as soon as it came to the notice of the appellant, he prepared a damaged report. In this way he had done his duty and committed no negligence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant got a case registered against the delequents and did not show any leniency against them, and has attached R/2 and R/3.

6. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that the appellant was fully responsible for this lapse because he being a supervisory officer, was responsible for the entire because of his not acting in time, the loss had occurred to Government. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed and all the punishments maintained as such,

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that in the inquiry report it has been clearly mentioned that Abdul Latif and Muhammad Aslam learnt about this incident in the early morning on 26‑6‑1981, whereas they informed the appellant in the evening when the entire woods were removed from the place. In the inquiry it has also been mentioned that all of them were equally guilty of the negligence and be punished accordingly. I have also examined the damaged report which is on record, and therefore, it cannot be said that no damaged report was prepared by the appellant. The recovery memo as well as F.I.R. substantiate the argument of the appellant that he did all to prosecute persons who have cut down the trees from the jungle. However, the fact remains that Government has been put to loss of Rs.9,420 and this loss should be shared by the appellant and Muhammad Aslam although Abdul Latif has escaped the punishment without any cogent reasons. As the said Abdul Latif is not before us this Tribunal cannot pass any order against him, on the golden principle of justice that nobody can be condemned without being heard.

8. I have further examined the punishments so awarded to the) appellant and find that they are not proportionate with the negligence so attributed to the appellant and it would be sufficient in the larger interest of justice, that the appellant should pay his share of loss so caused to Government so that Government may not suffer any pecuninary loss for his act of omission. However, rest of the punishments look very harsh as well as unjustified, when it is clearly on record that he only came to know of this fact in the evening when the woods had already been removed, whereas M/s. Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Latif had full knowledge of the same.

9. The result is I accept the appeal, set aside the entire punish?ments so awarded to him through the impugned order, but maintain the punishment of recovery of loss of Rs.9,420 in equal proportion and direct him to pay the share of his loss to Government either in I lump sum or through instalments already so imposed upon him. He shall be entitled for the back benefits as a result of restoration of other punishments. There will be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H./101/Sr.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.