Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petitions Nos. 1154 and 1187 of 1984, decided on 1st February, 1986.
(Against the Judgment, dated 17‑10‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 669(L) of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1‑A)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑WAPDA employee removed from service under S. 17(1‑A) of Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑Service Tribunal modifying order to that of retirement‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Service Tribunal empowered to vary order of removal and converting it to one of retirement‑‑No question of law of public importance arising to merit consideration by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
1986 S C M R 18 and M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L D 1980 S C 22 ref.
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1‑A)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑Removal from service‑‑Mala fide‑‑Misconduct‑‑WAPDA employee removed from service on charge of misconduct‑‑Allegations of bias and mala fide not enquired into‑‑No proper enquiry conducted to establish misconduct‑‑Service Tribunal modified removal to that of retirement on ground of unblemished service record‑‑Both parties seeking leave to appeal‑‑Held: It could not be said that every case of irregularity committed by an employee must be followed by a departmental enquiry under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and action under S. 17(1‑A) is not permissible‑‑Such action was permissible even where departmental enquiry was started‑‑Only ground on which such an order could be challenged was mala fide and coram non judice but it was not raised in manner provided in rule 6(2) of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 which required disclosure of full facts with supporting material summarised and on affidavit‑‑Service Tribunal proceeded to justify action taken against employee on basis of his own admission‑‑No question of law of public importance arising to merit consideration, petitions dismissed.
Abdul Karim v. The West Pakistan Province P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 298 ref.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: Ist February, 1986.
‑‑Both the parties to a Service Appeal partly allowed by the Service Tribunal, seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 17‑10‑1984.
The employee (petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1187/1984) was suspended on 6‑11‑1977, charge‑sheeted on 10‑11‑1977 and on receipt of its reply was retired from service. He challenged this order in Labour Court and succeeded. The appeal of the Authority was dismissed on 7‑7‑1982. On 28‑7‑1982 by an office order passed under section 17(1‑A) he was removed from service with immediate effect by giving him thirty days' pay in lieu thereof. He challenged this order in the Service Tribunal on the grounds that when the Labour Appellate Tribunal had ordered an inquiry into the charges the Authority could not summarily remove him from service and that it was a case of victimisinog him for his Trade Union activities. The Tribunal upheld the order but modified it to that of retirement instead of removal from service as he had an unblemished record of service upto 1978.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel representing the employee contended that the allegations against the petitioner were factual that an elaborate inquiry into the allegations was necessary and in any case there was allegation of bias and factual mala fide which should have been in any case inquired into and a finding recorded before adjudicating on the merits of the order of removal from service. According to him, the action was not legally permissible under section 17(1‑A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act in cases involving misconduct.
Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, the learned counsel representing the Authority contended that as the charges against the employee were serious and his conduct habitually in violation of the rules governing his duties the punishment of removal was proper and should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal on considerations that he had an unblemished record of service or that such an action was harsh and uncalled for.
After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that no question of law of public importance arises in these petitions to merit further consideration in this Court. We have in Civil Appeals 170‑173 of 1983, decided on 16‑12‑1985 (reported as 1986 S C M R 18) upheld on the basis of decision in M. Yasmin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L D 1980 S C 22 the Tribunal's powers to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the orders impugned before it and have conceded to it, the powers of varying the order of removal and converting it into one of retirement. Similarly, it cannot be said that every case of irregularity committed by an employee must be followed by a departmental inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and action under section 17(1‑A) is not permissible. Actually, it has been held that such an action is permissible even where departmental inquiry has been started Abdul Karim v. The West Pakistan Province P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 298. The only ground on which such an order could be challenged was of mala fide and coram non judice. The ground of mala fide was in fact raised in the appeal before the Tribunal but certainly not in the manner provided in rule 6(2) of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 which required full disclosure of facts with supporting material summarised and on affidavit. Besides, the Service Tribunal had proceeded to justify the action taken against him on the basis of his own admissions in reply to the charge‑sheet earlier served upon him.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in both the petitions and leave to appeal is refused.
M.I. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer