MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by an Assistant Food Controller against a judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal concerning departmental recovery. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a Food Grain Inspector for a shortage of empty wheat bags at a food centre, resulting in an order imposing equal monetary recovery on both officers. While the co-accused officer deposited his share, the petitioner challenged the recovery before the Service Tribunal, arguing that he was not in charge of the empty bags and thus not liable for their loss. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding as a matter of fact that although the bags were dispatched to the co-accused, they were actually received by the petitioner at the destination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether this factual finding of liability warranted interference. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that since a factual finding was recorded against the petitioner establishing his receipt of the bags, no interference was called for, and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Does a finding of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding the physical receipt of departmental goods bar interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can an officer escape departmental financial liability for missing goods when it is established as a matter of fact that he received them at the destination?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL J.--This petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Ramzan Khan petitioner is directed against judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 21st January, 1988 whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that it came to the notice of respondent No, 1 that there was a shortage of 3970 B-class empty bags of wheat at Shergarh centre. The petitioner who was posted as Assistant Food Controller was proceeded against departmentally alongwith Ejaz Nabi Saleemi, Food Grain Inspector vide show-cause notices dated 1st January 1986. The petitioner as well as the Food Grain Inspector submitted their respective replies. The respondent No, 1 imposed the recovery of an amount of Rs,55,580 on both of them in equal proportion vide his order dated 13th January, 1986 as the price of 3970 empty bags. The Food Grain Inspector deposited his share of the liability but the petitioner eventually preferred an appeal in the Tribunal which has been dismissed as stated above and hence the present petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal for the reason that he did not implead Ejaz Nabi Saleemi as respondent, but this is not the correct position. It had been contended) before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner that since he was not incharge of I the empty bags, he could not be held liable for their loss. But in regard to this, argument the finding of the Tribunal is that while the empty bags were received by Ejaz Nabi Saleemi from Mughalpura but at the destination i.e, Shergarh centre the same had been received by the petitioner and that therefore the petitioner could not escape from his liability. Since this finding of fact has been recorded against the petitioner, in our view no interference is called for.
4. The petition is therefore dismissed.