Ch. WALI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN and another
These petitions arise from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the departmental recovery of financial compensation imposed on the petitioners, who were Foodgrains Inspectors, following a colossal shortage of wheat stored under their supervision during procurement. The petitioners were served with charge sheets, subjected to departmental inquiry, and subsequently penalized with recovery orders after being found responsible for the shortage. Their departmental appeals having failed to yield a decision within the statutory period, they approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals. Upon petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the authorities below violated the legal principles established in a precedent case. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent orders were vitiated by non-compliance with established jurisprudence regarding service matters and departmental inquiries.
- Whether the authorities below violated the law laid down in Maqsood Ahmad Sheikh v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan during the departmental proceedings?
- Are Foodgrains Inspectors liable for wheat shortages detected in final stock reports after clearance of storage bins?
- Did the Punjab Service Tribunal err in dismissing the appeals filed against the imposition of recovery for wheat shortages?
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--These two petitions one by Ch. Wali Muhammad and the other Muhammad Ibrahim arise from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 16-3-1988.
2. The petitioners, Foodgrains Inspectors were posted at P.R. Centre Arifwala, during the procurement of wheat for the year 1983-84. There were in all 25 Bini Shells and total quantity of 54634.405 M tons of wheat was stored therein. The wheat was despatched and Bini Shells were cleared by the end of December, 1984. A total shortage of 529.146 M tons of wheat was declared in the final stock report. It was a colossal shortage therefore the petitioners were served with Charge Sheet on 30-10-1985 alongwith the statements of allegations. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Assistant Food Controller, Arifwala, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted his report on 25-1-1986 to the 'Authorised Officer' who sent for the petitioners, heard them in person and concluded that the petitioners were responsible for shortage of 411.796 M tons of wheat and recommended that the amount should be recovered from the petitioners and their colleagues. The `Authority' then proceeded to serve them with a Show-Cause Notice and after hearing the petitioners imposed recovery of Rs.8,77,125.41 being the price of 411.796 M tons wheat in the proportions given in the order.
3. The petitioners filed departmental appeals but since were not decided within the statutory period they filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal which were ultimately dismissed on 16-3-1988.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record of The case. The only point that he urged before us was that the authorities below have flagrantly violated the law laid down by this Court in A the case of Maqsood Ahmad Sheikh v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan reported in 1987 SCM R 1562. Leave is therefore granted in both the cases to consider the above question.