Find a Lawyer

Case No. 18(86) of 1979, decided on 5th May, 1980.

‑‑‑S. 6‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, R. 8‑‑Suspension of employee beyond three months not extended by approval of next higher authority‑‑Such suspension, held, would vitiate entire inquiry proceedings which culminated in his dismissal from service‑‑Specified Authority accepting petition and ordering re‑instatement of employee.

‑‑‑ Ex parte domestic inquiry‑‑Requirements‑‑Such domestic inquiry, held, should not be undertaken before ascertaining facts about service o‑notice to employee proceeded against‑‑Inquiry Officer was not justified in proceeding ex parte against employee.

. This petition has been submitted under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 by one Abdul Jamil, ex‑Upper Division Clerk of Hassan Abdal Sub‑Division of WAPDA. He has submitted that he was placed under suspension by the respondent as a result of his so‑called involvement in malpractices under WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He has submitted that the order of suspension is arbitrary, improper on the grounds that the suspension period of the petitioner was not extended by the high authority as required under the Rules. He has also denied any involvement in the alleged malpractices as these were without any foundation. He has prayed that the respondent may be directed that the petitioner may be re‑instated with full benefits and the cost may also be awarded.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the ‑petitioner is a Civil Servant under the WAPDA (Amendment) Act, 1975 and that only the Services Tribunal has the jurisdiction in the matter and that his application may, therefore, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. He also submitted that the petition is misconceived as the sanction of the next higher authority was accorded for the suspension of the petitioner upto 31st December, 1979, vide office order, dated 19th November, 1979. He further submitted that an enquiry was deputed and he had conducted an enquiry in this matter.

3. During the course of the proceedings it was submitted by the petitioner that on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer his services have been dispensed with and he has been debarred from service by order, dated 17th January, 1980. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide office order No.71, dated 29th March,1979 under the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He has submitted that under the said rules an employee accused of subversive activities, corruption of misconduct can be suspended by a competent authority and any continuation of such suspension shall require approval of the next higher authority after every three months. He has submitted that after expiry of 3 months no order continuing suspension of the petitioner was issued by higher authority and that the order issued by the Chief Engineer under No. 295/CCI/INO‑435, dated 19th November,1979 accorded continued suspension of the petitioner for the period, dated 10th October, 1979 to 31st December, 1979. There was therefore, no extension of the suspension for the period 28th June, 1979 to 30th September; 1979, He has further submitted that the petitioner was called upon to attend the enquiry on 8th October,1979 but was not called subsequently and as such he addressed a letter to the enquiry officer informing him that he has no knowledge about the enquiry being conducted against him and he may be informed of the position to enable him to produce his witnesses and to cross‑examine the witnesses produced against him. He has submitted that the enquiry was held ex parte and the enquiry officer has mentioned in his report that the petitioner appeared at the enquiry on 8th October, 1979 but did not appear subsequently on 24th October, 1979. It has also been submitted in the enquiry report that the petitioner failed to turn up on 21st November, 1979 in spite of the fact that he had intimation about the date of hearing as has been reported by Mr. Abid Hussain, S.D.O., WAPDA Hasanabdal. The respondent further failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner was served to attend the enquiry proceedings on 24th October, 1979 or on 21st November, 1979.

4. I find that the office order suspending the petitioner which was issued on 29th March,1979 remained in force till 28th June,1979. Under the rules this order could be extended only by a higher authority and the respondent failed to produce any order of the next higher authority relating to the continued suspension of the petitioner after 28th June, 1979. The Order No. 295/CE/Enquiry‑435, dated 19th November, 1979 A accorded sanction of the continued suspension of the petitioner for the period 1st October,1979 to 31st December,1979. There was, therefore, no order of his suspension for the period 29th June, 1979 to 30th September, 1979. This has, therefore, vitiated the entire enquiry proceedings against the petitioner.

The respondent has also failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner had received the call notice to appear before the enquiry officer on 24th October, 1979 or 21st November, 1979. As a matter of fact the petitioner had addressed a letter to the enquiry officer asking him to inform about the position of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer was, therefore, not justified in proceedings against him ex parte before ascertaining the fact whether g he has been served or not. I, therefore, order that the suspension of the petitioner and the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner were not in order and as such his dismissal was without lawful authority. I therefore, direct that he should be re‑instated, with effect from the date of publication of these Directions in the official Gazette. The respondent shall have the right to proceed against him in accordance with the Rules.

A. A.

Reinstatement ordered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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