Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AJMAL VS Respondent: DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHOREHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMID KHAN
1992 P L C (C
1992 P L C (C.S.) 767
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Before Abdul Hamid Khan, Member
MUHAMMAD AJMAL
Versus
DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
Appeal No. 467 of 1990, decided on 12th June, 1991.
(a) Civil service---
--- Penalty of recovery of loss--Validity---Both enquiry officer and authorised officer having declared civil servant innocent, civil servant contended that Authority could not take different view and order of Authority could be vitiated on that account---Contention was repelled as findings of enquiry (dicer and authorised officer, would not constitute a bar to Authority for taking a different view, especially when it had not become fumets officio.
(b) Civil service---
--Penalty of recovery of loss--Both enquiry officer and authorised officer had held that entire loss of wheat was caused due to conditions which were beyond control of civil servant why was Food grains Supervisor for which he could not be held responsible for being negligent or careless---Both of them based their findings entirely on explanation submitted by civil servant and documents produced by him before them and they had made no effort whatsoever to make any analytical and objective assessment of problem---Enquiry report comprised less than two pages written in Urdu and was largely a reproduction of contentions of civil servant---Authority generally agreed that factors like heavy rains and open storage of wheat over a long period, were responsible for the damage, but alleged that if civil servant had availed and utilized facility of tarpaulins provided to him and had been more vigilant, so much loss would not have been caused---Although civil servant was accused of not being vigilant enough, yet he had been given maximum remission by Authority---No effort was made both by enquiry officer and authorised officer and even Authority to, make a systematic determination of alleged loss which was caused to wheat due to defective storage conditions or on account of natural calamities and then to establish neglect or lack of care on part of civil servant---order passed by Authority was not based on documentary evidence but was based on conjectures and also was vague and without logic---Such irrational order of Authority could not sustain---Civil servant other wise, could not be considered alone at fault as he had been submitting reports to his immediate supervisors regarding condition of stock and for their clearance in time but no heed was paid to his urgent call---Even if civil servant was not vigilant enough, supervisory officers themselves were not vigilant---Order passed against civil servant Authority was set aside and case remanded to be decided afresh in circumstances of case.
L-G.P., Punjab N. Amir Muhammad Abdullah Khan and 4 others 1990 SCMR 1412; Director, Food, Punjab and another v. Syed Abu Bakr and others 1992 SCMR 1446 and Malik Muhammad Akram v. Director, Food. Punjab and others 1987 PLC (C.S.) 612 ref.
Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th January, 1991.