Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WAPDA VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C. S.) 1180
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ
WAPDA and 3 others
versus
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another
Civil Petitions Nos. 1504‑L and 1507‑L of 1996, decided on 18th February, 1997.
(On appeal from the common judgment dated 11‑3‑1996 of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeals Nos. 307(L) and 321(L) of 1995).
West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑‑Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, R. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Employees of Authority‑‑‑Removal from service on basis of summary inquiry‑‑‑Service Tribunal setting aside orders of employees' removal giving option to Authority either to proceed against them under Efficiency and Discipline Rules or even under S. 17(1‑A), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Contention raised against decision of Service Tribunal was; that charges levelled against employees were fully substantiated by report of preliminary inquiry which was placed on record of appeal but same had been illegally ruled out of consideration by Service Tribunal, that Service Tribunal on one hand took view that summary proceedings under S. 17(1‑A), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, adversely reflected on bona fides of Authority but on the other hand while remanding case left it open to Authority to proceed against respondents under same provision; and that such view had rendered decision of Service Tribunal self‑contradictory‑‑ Contentions raised by petitioners needed examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to petitioners for consideration 'of contention raised by them.
S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners
Muhammad Asgher Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Caveator/Respondent
Date of hearing: 18th February, 1997
ORDER
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of both the captioned petitions which seek leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal accepting the service appeal of Muhammad Nawaz respondent in C.P. 1504‑L of 1996 and Anwar‑ul‑Haq respondent in C.P. 1507‑L of 1996. .
2. Both the respondents were removed from service on the allegation that they manhandled and gave shoe‑beating to their S.D.O. Muhammad Munir. It appears that in the first instance, proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were initiated against the respondents and they were served with the charge‑sheets accompanied by statements of allegations. Subsequently, however, they were given show‑cause notices purporting to have been issued under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be retired or removed from service under the said provision. It appears that the Authority after considering the defence‑replies submitted by the respondents to the show‑cause notices and after giving them personal hearing decided to remove them from service with immediate effect and vide office orders dated 6‑4‑1995, respondents were removed from service. Respondents challenged these orders before the Service, Tribunal contending, inter alia, that their summary removal from service was mala fide.
3. The learned Tribunal took the view that although the Authority was not required to give any reason for retiring or removing any employee under section 17(1‑A) but in the instant case since a definite allegation was made against the respondents in the show‑cause notices served upon them, it will have to be seen whether the allegation made against the employee was correct that is to say "whether the material on record justifies the finding that the charge of assaulting the S.D.O. has been substantiated against the appellants". The learned Tribunal then proceeded to hold that "there is nothing reliable on the record to show that the appellants assaulted the S.D.O. and gave him a shoe‑beating. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of Criminal Court acquitting the respondents of the charge of assaulting/beating the S.D.O. to hold that the charge was not proved. The learned Tribunal ruled out of consideration the report of Director, Inquiries forming the basis of action against the respondents holding that the inquiry was conducted at the back of the respondents and they were not supplied copies of the inquiry report and the statements of the witnesses. The Tribunal also took exception to the relinquishment of the proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and instead starting proceedings under section 17(1‑A) and held that the course so adopted "certainly cast aspersions on the bona fides of the Authority." On these findings, the appeals of the respondents were accepted, orders of their removal were set aside with the observation "that the Authority shall be within its power either to proceed against them afresh under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules or even under, section 17(1‑A) of the Act in accordance with la
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (WAPDA and its three officers) has, inter alia, contended that the charge levelled against the respondents/employees was fully substantiated by the report of the preliminary inquiry which was placed on record of the service appeal but the same has been illegally ruled out of the consideration by the Service Tribunal. It is further contended that the Service Tribunal on the one hand took the view that the summary proceedings under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act adversely reflected on the bona fides of the Authority but when remanding the case left it open to the Authority to proceed against, the respondents under the same provision. This, according to the learned counsel, has rendered the decision of the Tribunal self‑contradictory. Learned counsel also sought to rely upon a leave granting order dated 25‑1‑1997 passed in C.Ps. Nos. 517/96 and 93/97 to contend that the respondents having been removed under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, after considering their defence replies and hearing them in person, the learned Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the orders passed by the authority more so when there was no mala fide whatever on the part of the petitioners in removing the respondents from service.
5. Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners need examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to the petitioners. Stay order granted in the Chambers shall continue in force pending the final hearing of the appeal which may be fixed at an early date.
A.A./W‑3/S Leave granted.