Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AKHTAR HAYAT VS Respondent: WAPDA
1992 P L C (C
1992 P L C (C.S.) 1355
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Muhammad Ismail, Members
AKHTAR HAYAT
Versus
WAPDA through Chairman
Appeal No. 272(L) of 1986, decided on, 26th March, 1992.
(a) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)---
----S. 17(1-A)---Removal from service---Validity---Power of removal having been given to Authority .it had been exercised in accordance with law-- Members concerned and Chairman who jointly constituted Authority had expressed their opinion in very clear terms about removal of appellant and impugned order was passed in pursuance of decision made by them-- Appellant's case was although separately examined by each Member and Chairman and it was not put before them in a joint meeting, but that was not necessary under law---Manner in which opinion of each Member and Chairman was expressed was not material; what was material was expression of opinion which was clearly expressed---There was no need for meeting of Authority for consideration as law does not enjoin that decision in respect of removal from service could be taken only in a formal meeting of Authority-- Positive application of mind of Members concerned and Chairman was required in support of decision which clearly was there---Order of removal from service was, thus passed by Authority validly under provision of S.17(1-A) of Act XXXI of 1958.
(b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)---
----S. 17(1-A)---Removal from service---Notice of thirty days ---Necessity-- Authority was competent to remove any person from service without assigning any reason---Thirty days' pay in lieu of notice would be sufficient compliance with requirement of law.
(c) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)---
----S. 17(1-A)---Removal from service---Non-mentioning payment of thirty days' pay in lieu of notice in order of removal---Effect---Authority having passed order for removal of civil servant under S.17(1-A) of the Act XXXI of 1958, it was sufficient compliance with requirement of law---Such order need not have specifically mentioned that thirty days' salary be paid in lieu of notice---Authority's order of removal was thus, sufficient for all intents and purposes.
Ch. Nazir Hussain for Appellant.
Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing 17th March, 1992.