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, LAHORE VS Respondent: SHAN ELAHI
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 104
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 3 others
versus
SHAN ELAHI
Civil Petition No. 869‑L of 1992, decided on 21st December, 1993.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 7‑7‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 217(L) of 1989).
West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr. 8(b) & 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)‑‑‑Order of dismissal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal converting order of dismissal into order of reduction to the lowest stage in time scale for a period of two years‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Points raised in petition were that appeal before Service Tribunal having not been pressed on merits, reduction in the penalty was not justified; in another case with similar facts leave had been granted by the Supreme Court which appeal was pending; and that provision of R. 5(a), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, relied upon by Service Tribunal was not attracted to the facts of the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the points raised.
Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record and Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st December, 1993.
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Respondent Shan Elahi was working as Assistant Line Man, when he made an application for two years leave extraordinary without pay, which was not allowed by the competent authority. He remained absent and since notice could not be served on him, it was published in WAPDA Khabarnama dated 20‑4‑1989. Competent authority acting under Rule 8(b) of WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 passed order of dismissal from service, being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to serve show‑cause notice upon respondent as contemplated under Rule 5 of the said Rules. After failing in departmental appeal, respondent had filed appeal before the Service Tribunal, which is accepted in part to the extent that order of dismissal is substituted by order of reduction to the lowest stage in time scale for a period of two years.
2. WAPDA as petitioners seek leave to appeal on the grounds that since appeal before the Tribunal was not pressed on merits, reduction in the penalty to the extent mentioned above, is not justified and in another case with similar facts, leave has been granted by this Court (C.P.S.L.A. No. 801‑L of 1990) on 25‑11‑1990, which appeal is pending. Secondly that Rule 5(a) of the said Rules is not attracted in the instant case for the reason that it applies to an inefficient worker or habitual malingerer.
3. We grant leave to examine the above contentions.
AA./W‑122/S Leave granted.