Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AKRAMHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal ZullahAsif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate onRecord,Nemo
1989 S C M R 1628
1989 S C M R 1628
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD AKRAM Respondent
Civil Petition foe Leave to Appeal No.172‑R of 1988, decided on 20th May, 1989.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8,3‑1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal. Islamabad, in new Appeal No.323 (R)/87 (Old No.343 (L)/84).
Service Tribunals Act (LXXX of 1973)‑
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Contention was that the Service Tribunal reduced the punishment of respondent considering that there was only one case of misreading of meter whereas show‑cause notice contained about two dozens of misreadings and that had the Tribunal read that property the result would have been different‑‑Appeals of WAPDA had been accepted in similar cases with an order of remand‑‑Leave to appeal was granted.
WAPDA v. Sh. Zulfiqar Ali P L D 1988 S C 693 ref.
Asif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989.
ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been .ought by the WAPDA; against the reduction of punishment by the Federal Service Tribunal, on appeal filed by the respondent.
Learned counsel has contended that the learned Members of the Tribunal did not properly read the record and fell into error of misreading. While the Tribunal thought that there was only one case of misreading by the respondent of a Meter, in reality he was almost in the habit of doing so. The show‑cause notice, dated 26‑2‑1984 has been relied upon in this behalf. Learned counsel has pointed out that the Tribunal noticed the recommendation of the S.D.O. for lenient punishment only in one case‑‑show‑cause notice dated 10‑5‑1984. And that it had failed to read another part of the record which contained a show‑cause notice regarding about two Dozens misreadings. Lastly, he contended that the Tribunal failed to notice that one of the charges against the respondent was that he was guilty of misreading of a particular Meter with a difference of' 43082 units. It has been lastly contended that if all this would have been properly read by the learned Tribunal the results would have been different.
We have accepted appeals by the WAPDA in similar cases with an order of remand in several matters reported as `WAPDA v. Sh. Zulfiqar Ali' P L D 1988 S C 693. Accordingly (cave to appeal is granted in this petition also.
The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to file all essential documents.
To be heard with similar other cases, if still pending.
M.A.K./E‑13/S Leave granted.