Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AZHAR
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, Abdul Qadir Sheikh Title: WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD AZHAR Case No.: Civil Appeal No.810 of 1984 Appeal No.432(L) of 1982 Date of Judgment:1986-10-26 Reported As: 1987 SCMR 1931 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 9-7-1984. 2. The facts are that Muhammad Azhar respondent was working as an Executive Engineer in WAPDA since February 1971. He was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, by order dated 17-4-1982. He filed an appeal against the order of his removal from service before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which, by its order dated 9-7-1984, accepted the same and ordered his reinstatement without prejudice to the departmental proceedings already pending against him. 3. Leave was granted in this case to consider whether in view of the complete ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, the Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with the orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed or serving under it. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As for the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it has been held by this Court in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18 that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter. As for the merits, the appellant had failed to produce the documents required by the Service Tribunal for its examination in spite of the time allowed to it, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the appeal. The same was the position of the appellant here before us. No document whatsoever was produced for us to examine whether any material existed against the respondent for his removal from service. 5. Thus finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.