| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 2216 1991 SLD 2216 1991 KLR 216 |
Lahore High Court
Appeal No. 683 of 1989, 12th January, 1991
MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZUDA, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. 683 of 1989, 12th January, 1991
MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZUDA, CHAIRMAN
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Jam Manzoor Ahmed
VS
The Director Food, Punjab, And Another Lahore
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Authorised Officer, Departmental Appeal, Procedure, Punishment, Care, Recovery, Illegal, Personal Hearing, Parties, Disposal, Orders, Chairman, Order, Impugned Order, Costs, Liability, Period, Director, Penalty, Proceedings, Copy JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Jam Manzoor Ahmad, Food grains Inspector has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders date 26.12.1987 and 6.8.1988 passed by the respondents. The appellant has impleaded Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set-aside. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal -of this appeal are that during 1982- 83 scheme the appellant was posted at PR Centre Kot Samaba in District Rahimyar Khan. He purchased and stored 4412.560 tons wheat at the said centre. The stocks were stored in 34 'Gunjies'. On clearance of stocks there was storage loss of 327.712 tons wheat. The appellant was proceeded under the rules and respondent No.2 (Authority) written of the loss to the extent of Rs. 2,69,699.16 and imposed recovery of Rs. 3,41,084.64 upon the appellant for the remaining loss vide impugned order dated 26.12.1987. Appellant preferred appeal before respondent No.1 which to has rejected vide impugned order dated 6.8,1988. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parlies at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the Department with care. 4. The main contention of the appellant's counsel is that the appellant has been saddled with the liability without any basis and whole proceedings are illegal. Conversely learned D.A- opposed the appeal and argued that impugned orders passed by the respondents in the light of comments/report be allowed to stand. 5. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parlies and find that it is true that generally…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492