Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMED VS Respondent: DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJABHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA
1992 P L C (C
1992 P L C (C.S.) 38
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Mehmud Aslam Pirzada, Chairman
JAM MANZOOR AHMED
Versus
DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB and another
Appeal No. 683 of 1989, decided on 12th January, 1991.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---
----S. 4---Appellant, a Food grains Inspector was proceeded against for shortage of stock and was penalised for the recovery of part of loss; rest of loss having been written off---Appellant's departmental appeal was dismissed ---Validity-- Although there were rains during the season and stocks were in open, yet there was nothing on record to prove that there were heavy rains at that particular center and appellant really made all possible efforts to spray the stocks-- Tarpulines were provided and proper dunnage was done against rains and natural calamities---Had appellant availed of all those facilities properly and had he been more vigilant, losses would not have occurred---Full justification was given for imposing the penalty and Appellate Authority had rightly rejected appellant's departmental appeal---Orders passed by Authorities were quite legal, valid and in accordance with law---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th December, 1990.