DIRECTOR FOOD, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another vs Syed
The Director Food, Government of the Punjab, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Service Tribunal which set aside an order of recovery passed against the respondent, a Foodgrain Supervisor, regarding a shortage of wheat. An inquiry had recommended writing off a portion of the loss due to weather calamities and genuineness of losses, but the competent authority ordered recovery of the remaining loss from the respondent under rule 18.4(a) of P.F.R. Vol. I Part I read with Delegation of Powers under the Financial Rules and Powers of Re-appropriation Rules, 1962. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in interfering with the recovery order. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority failed to first determine the extent of loss due to defective storage conditions and natural calamities and to establish neglect or lack of care on the part of the respondent, making the Tribunal's interference justified. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in setting aside an order of recovery when the competent authority fails to determine the extent of loss due to natural calamities and establish neglect on the part of the employee?
- Can leave to appeal be granted under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Service Tribunal where no legal error is committed?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Director, Food, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 31-5-1986 whereby the order of recovery passed against the respondent was set aside.
2. The respondent was entrusted with the duties of procurement and storage of wheat and a shortage of 2,81,000 k.g. Of wheat was discovered for which an inquiry was held. The Authorised Officer made the recommendations as hereunder:-- ' The plea taken by the aforesaid officials in respect of their genuineness of losses is convincing and I, therefore, recommend that the loss of 281.069 M. Tons of shortage of wheat may kindly be written off. The remaining loss i,e.
104.601 M. Tons Residue and 23.675 M. Tons damaged may kindly be decided as per Government directions as the stocks were badly damaged due to weather calamity which was beyond the human control."
' The competent authority passed the following order:-- "On receipt of report, both the officials were summoned for personal hearing on 25-3-1985 in this case. They appeared before the undersigned accordingly and were heard in person. They contended that every possible efforts were made to save the stocks stored in open in shape of ganjies but no fruitful result could be achieved which resulted in shortage/damage. Keeping in view all the above facts as well as recommendations of the District Food Controller, Bahawalpur/ Authorised Officer, I in exercise of the powers vested in me under rule 18.4(a) of P.F.R. Vol. I Part I read with Sr. No, 2 Part II (Special Powers of Food Department) of the Delegation of Powers under the Financial Rules and Powers of Re-appropriation Rules, 1962, decide to write off the loss up to Rs, 10,000 in each ganji as detailed below and remaining loss is ordered to be recovered from both the accused officials (Syed Abu Bakar Shah and Muhammad Abbas, Foodgrain Supervisors) equally.
The amount so written off has already been charged to the following head of account:-- ' (811(597) on scheme at to trading Grant No, 33 cost of wheat and other incidental charges."
3. The Service Tribunal on examination of the storage conditions and the serious handicaps under which the respondent worked, set aside the order of recovery.
4. Mr. Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the competent authority had passed an order which it was competent to pass and no legal error could be found in it, the interference by the Tribunal was unjustified and uncalled for.
5. As has been noticed in other similar cases coming before us, the competent authority has been inhibited in appraising a factual situation by limitations of its own financial powers in the matter of writing off losses. The A appropriate course for the Authority was to have first determined the extent of loss due to defective storage conditions of which the respondent had been complaining and to natural calamities as such and thereafter to take appropriate steps for establishing the neglect or lack of care on the part of the respondent. That having not been done, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order.
6. No legal error has been committed. Leaveto appeal is, therefore, refused.