Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 672(L) of 1982, heard on 15th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Plenary power of Authority Action can be taken in suitable cases notwithstanding fact that action under WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules is also possible‑ Adopting ingenious method of defrauding by adding higher figures in consumer's ledgers with guilty mind‑‑Sufficient to justify action leading to removal from service.

Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant.

Syed Kamal Mufti for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15^th December, 1985.

‑‑This appeal is by Riaz Ahmad, who was removed from service on 31‑7‑1982, under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act.

2. The appellant was serving as L.D.C. when during the audit, it was found that certain serious irregularities had been committed by him and his other colleagues for their own benefit. These included excess cash posting in the consumers' ledgers, bogus posting of cash entries and wrong posting and bogus refunds recorded in the ledgers.

3. The Chairman, Area Electricity Board appointed an inquiry committee consisting of the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer and the Audit Officer to examine the irregularities committed by the appellant and others in respect of which charge‑sheets had been served. The Committee found the appellant and several others guilty, and as a result the appellant was dismissed from service by order, 31‑3‑1981. The order was challenged by the appellant before the Labour. Court which re‑instated the appellant by order, dated 21‑2‑1982 The Labour Court found that the inquiry was not freely conducted. The Court also left it to the department to proceed afresh against the appellant. No fresh proceedings against the appellant were, however, taken, but after nine months he was removed from service by the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the proper course for the department was to proceed afresh against the appellant under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, as directed by the Labour Court, and that resort to section 17 (1‑A) was male fide. We are not convinced by this argument. The power of the Authority under section 17 (1‑A) is plenary and it can take action under that provision in suitable cases notwithstanding the fact that action under WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules is also possible.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant then pointed out that all the mistakes committed by the appellant were due to rush of work and due to the fact that he had recently been promoted to the job. In this contention, we also do not find any substance. For instance, the excess cash posting made by the appellant shows that he adopted ingenious method of defrauding by adding figures of hundreds or thousands to the real figure. Thus in one case when the amount due was 86.59.89, he posted in the ledger Rs.559.89 and in another case where the amount due was Rs.131.60, he posted Rs.1,311.60 Without discussing the other items, it is sufficient to conclude that the appellant had al guilty mind, which he used for his own benefit. In our opinion, there was sufficient material against the appellant to justify action under section 17 (1‑A).

6. For the reasons stated above, we uphold the order of the Authority and dismiss this appeal with costs, which shall be realised by forfeiture of the security deposit.

A.E. 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.