Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAIN YAR KHAN VS Respondent: CHIEF ENGINEER, C.R.B.C., WAPDA, D.I. KHAN
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 1038
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Mir Hazar Khan Khoso and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ
ZAIN YAR KHAN
versus
CHIEF ENGINEER, C.R.B.C., WAPDA, D.I. KHAN and another
Civil Petition No. 667 of 1995, decided on 14th February, 1996. .
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 23-10-1995 passed in Appeal No. 54(P) of 1995).
Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978---
----R. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 212(3)---Misconduct-- Employee of Authority---Penalty for misconduct---Departmental Appellate Authority while accepting appeal of employee against imposition of penalty remanded-case for fresh inquiry---Order of remand of case was maintained by Service Tribunal--- Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether order passed by Departmental Appellate Authority remanding case without specifying reasons therefore, was the order properly passed within scope of powers enjoyed by it under Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 197.8.
Muhammad Khan Khakwani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th February, 1996.
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 23-10-1995 whereby his service appeal was dismissed.
In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that although under the relevant rules the appellate authority is entitled to enhance, reduce or modify the penalty imposed on the employee but it has no power to remand the case for a fresh inquiry by the competent Authority. It is also contended by the learned counsel that while remanding the case for fresh inquiry, the appellate authority did not mention any ground in support of the order of remand. In the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal the order passed by the appellate authority has been reproduced which shows that the appeal of the petitioner was accepted and the case was remanded for retrial on some technical grounds but the technical ground on which case was remanded and appeal was accepted, have neither been specified nor any other reason is given by the appellate authority.
We grant leave to appeal in the above case to consider the legal point whether the order passed by the appellate authority remanding the case without specifying the reasons therefore, was an order properly passed in the case within the scope of powers enjoyed by it under Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?.
A.A./Z-11/S Leave granted.