Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 677 of 1983, decided on 16th April, 1984.
(On appeal from the order of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 21‑9‑1983 in Appeal No. 140 (R) of 1980).
‑‑ Art. 212(3)‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1‑A)‑Retirement of WAPDA employee from service‑ Refusal by Service Tribunal to interfere with retirement of petitioner- Petition for leave to appeal against order of Tribunal found to be without any force and dismissed.‑[Civil services].
Karamat Hussain v. WAPDA through its Chairman N L R 1982 Lah. 6 distinguished.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India P L D 1958 S C (India) 217 not relevant.
Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th April, 1984.
.‑This leave to appeal petition arises out of refusal by the Central Service Tribunal to interfere with the retirement of the petitioner under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act of 1958. It reads as follows :‑‑
"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 it may, at any time, retire or 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."
Learned counsel contends that the A. C. Rs. relied upon by the Tribunal do not reflect any defect in performance or conduct of the petitioner that they show any misconduct they could not be relied upon without affording him an opportunity of getting them corrected by communication to him in accordance with the prescribed procedure ; that in any case if it was so, his services could not be terminated without proceeding under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and lastly that the provisions contained in section 17(1‑A) are as he put it ultra vires. In this behalf he has relied upon a leave granting order Karamat Hussain v. WAPDA through its Chairman (N L R 1982 Lah. 6) as also an Indian case reported as Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (P L D 1958 S C (Ind.) 217).
None of the arguments has any force. The A. C. Rs. does not show any misconduct. They relate in a cumilative way to the further usefulness of the petitioner in his own department. And that is why it was not necessary to communicate the same to him nor were they to be made the basis of an enquiry against him. And as there was no question of misconduct or stigma, this case is clearly distinguishable from the one reported in Karamat Hussain's case. The other case cited by the learned counsel with respect is not relevant in this matter. Lastly fie remained unable to show as to what the relevant provision is ultra wires.
This petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly.
S. Q. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer