1989 PLP 1534 (SCMR)
AFTAB AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1534 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AFTAB AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1534 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1534 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1534 (SCMR) (AFTAB AHMAD Petitioner Versus THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Munir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 30‑10‑1984 m Service Appeal No.146/L of 1983). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Death of Assistant Lineman for lack of sense of duty on the part of petitioner was established‑‑Proceedings conducted against petitioner were in accordance with rules and law‑‑Service Tribunal took lenient view and converted his dismissal into removal from service‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Aftab Ahmad, an Ex‑Lineman of WAPDA (E), Sargodha, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 30‑10‑1984. While serving as Lineman in Shahpur Sub‑Division, Sargodha Circle of WAPDA, he was dismissed from service by an order, dated 20‑4‑1982 of the Superintending Engineer, WAPDA, Sargodha. The charge was of gross negligence which resulted in fatal accident of Muhammad Akram, Assistant Lineman. The aforesaid Assistant Lineman climbed upon an electric pole on which the transmission line was energised. This was contrary to the instructions. It was the duty of the petitioner to take care of him. He failed to do so. Against his dismissal, his departmental appeal failed. Then he served a grievance notice. As he did not hear anything he moved an application before the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Labour Court declined to entertain the application on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner then came before the Tribunal. The first question before the Tribunal was that of limitation as the appeal was barred by time. The Tribunal condoned the delay, examined the merits of the case and ultimately dismissed his appeal. We have heared the learned counsel for the petitioner who tried to argue that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to plead his case. This is not correct because we find from the order of the Tribunal that a show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15‑12‑1981 which in spite of repeated efforts, the petitioner refused to receive. In such circumstances, the matter could not be adjourned sine die and the only course opened to the Superintending Engineer was to dismiss the petitioner from service. The proceedings conducted against the petitioner were in accordance with rules and law. It is established that the Assistant Lineman died because of lack of sense of duty on the part of the petitioner. In spite of all this the Tribunal took a lenient view and coverted his dismissal from service into removal from service. The petitioner is lucky that way and he should be contented with that. Not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Dismissed. M.A.K./A‑496/S Leave refused.