Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AHMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: WAPDA
1988 S C M R 1922
1988 S C M R 1922
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Malik AHMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner
versus
WAPDA‑‑Respondent
Civil Petitions Nos.13‑Q and 31‑R of 1987, decided on 2nd June, 1988.
(From the judgment/order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 14‑12‑1986 in Appeal No.3‑Q of 1983).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑ Misreading of evidence‑‑ Removal from service on charges of misconduct‑‑Service Tribunal in appeal upheld charges but reduced punishment to retirement from service‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that on reference to documentary evidence on record, allegations of misconduct against petitioner would be found incorrect.
(b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑Misreading of evidence‑‑ Limitation‑‑Time‑barred appeal‑‑Reduction of sentence by Service Tribunal, challenged‑‑ Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that Service Tribunal wrongly condoned delay in filing of appeal without adverting to relevant evidence on record and that charges being proved against accused employee Service Tribunal had erred in reducing penalty imposed upon him.
Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record and S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.13‑Q of 1987).
Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C . P. No.13‑Q of 1987) .
Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C . P. No. 31‑R of 1987) .
S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No.31‑R of 1987).
Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1988.
ORDER
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a second round of litigation before this Court, the first one having been brought by WAPDA, petitioner in C.P.L.A. No.31‑R of 1987 and respondent in C.P.L.A. No.13‑Q of 1987, which was decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.803 of 1984 with a result that the case was remanded to the Service Tribunal with certain directions contained in the judgment dated 10‑12‑1985.
On remand of the case, the Service Tribunal condoned the delay in the filing of the appeal of Malik Ahmad Nawaz, petitioner in C.P.L.A. No.13‑Q of 1987 and respondent in C.P.L.A. No.31‑R of 1987, but upheld the order passed against him, with modification that his removal from service was altered to his retirement from service, and with this modification his appeal was otherwise dismissed. On merits of the case the Service Tribunal upheld the charge against him that as a "Line Superintendent" he was interfering with the affairs of other formations, in that, he removed the old meter from the premises of M/s. Noor Band Wood Factory on 9‑5‑1982, when he was working in some other formation, and had no business of removing or replacing the meter and he thus allowed the consumer to utilize the electricity direct without any meter etc.
Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad, learned counsel appearing in support of C.P.L.A.No.13‑Q of 1987 submits with reference to the documentary evidence on record that petitioner had visited the premises under the directions of his superior officer, and removed the meter, and it is also totally an incorrect allegation that the consumer used the electricity without any electric consumption charges because he was directed to pay the fixed charges under the Rules which indeed were debited to his account.
Mr. Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned counsel appearing in support of C . P. L. A . No.31‑R of 1987, on the contrary, submits, that the Service Tribunal has wrongly condoned the delay in the filing of the appeal, without adverting to the relevant evidence on record, and that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the unauthorized removal of the meter is well supported by the record. Learned counsel further submit that on the charges proved against Malik Ahmad Nawas the Service Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty imposed upon him.
We find that the pleas raised in support of both petitions deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal in both petitions.
Appeals shall be heard together on the present records, but it is :open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
By consent the next hearing of the appeals is fixed at Karachi in November 1988, and ire case there is no sitting of the Court in the month, then during the session immediately thereafter.
M.I./A‑290/S Leave granted.