Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 159 (K) of 1976, decided on 26th November, 1975.

Official actions‑Presumption of regularity attached to all official actions‑Presumption rebuttable‑Onus on party challenging such regularity.

‑‑ S. 17 (1‑A) [as inserted vide West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance (XVI of 1975)]----- Authority given option to consider whether employee be removed simply by notice or notice pay or to be processed under normal efficiency and discipline rules‑‑‑ Action initiated prior to insertion of S. 17 (1‑A)‑‑Held, not ipso facto sufficient to presume mala fide in action under S. 17 (1‑A) subsequently and for rebuttal of presump tion of regularity in all official actions.

Kunwer Mukhtar for Appellant.

A. Aziz Dastgir for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 26th November, 1978.

Osman Ghani son of Sultan Abdul Ghani who while posted as Executive Engineer, Regional Store WAPDA Hyderabad was removed from service under section. 17 (1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958 under the Authority's Office Order No. SO (I)/I (24) WAA (76) 1089 dated 9th October 1976 has filed appeal against the afore said order under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 read with section 17(1‑B) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958.

2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 15th May. 1959 and since then was serving WAPDA. Having successfully com pleted the period of his probation, his appointment was made regular and he was promoted as Executive Engineer on 25th January; 1967. The grounds mentioned in the Memo of appeal on which it is sough to challenge the impugned order of termination of service are as under :‑‑‑

(i) That the Chairman WAPDA had not followed his own instructions as contained in his confidential Office Memorandum No. C/SO (E‑I) (1069‑B) Admn/44987‑45107 dated 1st November. 1975 issued with regard to exercise of powers under section 17 (1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958,

(ii) That the appellant feels that he has been made victim of fire Inci dent that took place in play, 1974 though the enquiry committee appointed by the General Manager (Distribution) did not find the appellant at fault.

3. With regard to the aforesaid two grounds the position taken lay the respondent in objections filed before this Tribunal is that the appellant was charge‑sheeted with regard to fire incident that took place in May. 1974 and he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him after holding a proper enquiry. However it was denied that the appellant had been removed from service on account of the aforesaid incident. It is further contended that the action of removal of the appellant from service after he was given 30 days pay in lieu of notice was correctly taken under section 17(1‑A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958.

4. With regard to ground stated at (i) above, it may be state that the presumption of regularity attaches to all official acts though such presumption is rebuttable. The appellant leas trot alleged mala fides specifically. The only contention is that the instructions issued by the respondent in respect of action under section 17(1‑A) had not been followed. The onus was entirely upon the appellant to substantiate ands prove his contention.

5. In the Office Memorandum issued by the Chairman; WAPDA on 1^st November, 1975 it was mentioned that the intention of the Govern ment conferring these powers is to remove from service without formal procedure of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, dishonest, corrupt and inefficient officers and officials. Section 17(1‑A) reads as under :‑

'"17(1‑A).‑Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any rules made, or orders or instructions issued by the Authority, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed, by, or serving under the Authority, the Authority may, at any time, remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him not less than thirty days notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of thirty days."

6. A perusal of the aforesaid section would show that the authority is not required to assign any reason for removing from its service any person and the only condition imposed is that notice of 30 days or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of 30 days is to be given to the person affected.

7. The section was added by enacting the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1975, which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary on 30th September, 1975. After the aforesaid amendment no doubt the authority had option 'to consider whether any person serving under the authority should be D removed under section 17(1‑A) or should be proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.

8. The fire incident referred to by the appellant admittedly took place in May, 1974 when the section 17(1‑A) had not yet beer added to the WAPDA Act aril, therefore, the procedure under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules had to be adopted. it cannot, therefore, be pleaded that just because an enquiry in the incident had been hell legal main fides have to be presumed. The position would have been somewhat different if after section 17(1‑A) was added, inquiry under the Efficiency and, Discipline Rules had first been ordered and during pendency of proceed ings order of removal under section 17(1‑A) bad been passed. In that are the authority could be considered to have exercised the discretion that the employee concerned had not committed such a fault for which he could be removed from service and therefore it would have been difficult for the Authority to explain reasons for such change of orders while the enquiry proceedings were actually pending.

9. In slid instant case, the appellant has merely alleged that Chairman WAPDA had not followed the procedure for scrutinizing the case and had applied section 17(1‑A) on whimsical grounds. It is further contended by him that the Chairman had missed powers cut of vanity to scow his authority. The allegations having been totally denied on behalf of the respondent and it was for the appellant to prove affirmatively the mala fides alleged which he has clearly failed to do, the appeal accord ingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.