Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 917
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
MUHAMMAD IQBAL
versus
WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others
Civil Petition No. 1720 of 2001, decided on 7th March, 2002.
(On appeal from the order dated 14‑4‑2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 161(R) CS of 2001).
Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑
‑‑‑‑S. 20‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Delegation of powers‑‑‑Major penalty of reduction of pay three steps down in time pay scale for three years‑‑‑Appeal against the penalty was dismissed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Contention of the civil servant was that the Chief Executive had not been delegated any powers by the Chairman under the provisions of S.20 of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, that the Service Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal of the civil servant in limine in which complicated facts and law were involved; and that the holding of regular inquiry could not be dispensed with in facts and circumstances of the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contentions of the civil servant.
Sheikh Riaz‑ul‑Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th March, 2002.
ORDER
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 14‑4‑2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 161(R) CS of 2001.
2. The petitioner was issued a letter of explanation dated 16‑11‑1999 followed by a show‑cause notice dated 12‑2‑2000 by respondent No.3 on the charges, of less billing to Kohinoor Textile Mills, Rawalpindi during his posting as Executive Engineer, WAPDA (Electricity), Rawalpindi from October. 1993 to April, 1994. Another letter of explanation was issued by the respondent No.1 on the same charges. Despite the directions given by respondent No.1 for withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings the respondent No.3 proceeded to award upon the petitioner a major penalty of reduction of pay three steps down in his time pay scale for three years. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 14‑4‑2001.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that: ‑‑
(i) The respondent No.3 was not competent to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner . who was permanent employee of respondent No. 1. Even otherwise the respondent No.3 had not been delegated any powers by the respondent No.1 under the provisions of section 20 of the Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958 (Act No.XXXI of 1958).
(ii) The Tribunal ought not have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine in which complicated facts and law were involved.
(iii) The holding of regular inquiry could not be dispensed with in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑342/S??????
Leave granted.