1988 PLP 1314 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these six cases from various judgments passed by the Federal Service Tribunal; whereby the orders passed by the petitioner under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, were either set aside ox were modified. Learned counsel relying on several judgments of this Court on the question: whether the action taken by the petitioner under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, could be annulled by the Service Tribunal on any ground other than lack of jurisdiction and/or bona fides, contended that jurisdiction not having been denied, there is no finding in any of these cases by the Tribunal that the action impugned before it, was mala fide. After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it proper to examine the points raised on behalf of the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos.53, 56 and 64 of 1987. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted therein. In C.Ps. 54; 55 and 57 of 1987, the respondents were proceeded against under section 17(1‑A) of the Act, on the ground that they had failed to support prosecution case before a criminal Court against several persons who had assaulted an S.D.O. notwithstanding the fact that the said respondents had, in their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P. C. , supported the police case. Learned counsel frankly stated that it was not possible to say as to whether the respondents had not made truthful statements before the Court. He is also unable to even assert the action impugned before the Tribunal was not on account of revenge simpliciter. That being so, even if there is no specific findings of mala fides, the facts relied upon by the petitioner would make out such a ground against the petitioner. Therefore. we do not consider these two cases fit for grant of leave to appeal. Petitions Nos.54 and 57 of 1987, are liable accordingly to be dismissed. Civil Petition No.55 of 1987 involves another element also. Liaquat Ali Shah respondent therein, was removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the Act, as stated by the learned counsel on two grounds; one, similar to that in Petitions Nos.54 and 57 of 1987, namely, that he had not supported the prosecution case regarding assault on an S.D.O. and two, that he was involved in a bribery case. The Service Tribunal could rightly distinguish his case from that of Rashid Ahmad (respondent in Petition No.57 of 1987), as in the latter case there was no other allegation of misconduct. Accordingly, while Rashid Ahmad was re‑instated on acceptance of his Service Appeal, Liaquat Ali Shah (respondent in C .P. 55‑R of 1987) was not re‑instated. His removal from service was converted into retirement from service. Although, the learned counsel did not point out during the arguments that the case of Abdul Azeem (respondent in C.P.54‑R of 1987) could fall in the same category, we have noticed that on acceptance of his appeal also, the Tribunal instead of re‑instating him converted his removal from service to retirement on the ground that there was an additional charge against him of having recorded bogus and fictitious meter‑reading. This Court declined to grant leave to appeal in similar case of modification of punishment by the Service Tribunal. See Water and Power Development Authority v. Aijaz Ahmad Sheikh and another (1987 S C M R 1940). In the circumstances of the present matter also, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court on question of punishment alone. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused in C.Ps. Nos.54‑R; 55‑R and 57‑R of 1987. As result while Petitions for leave to appeal are dismissed in C . Ps . Nos .54‑R ; 55‑R and 57‑R of 1987, they are allowed in 53‑R ; 56‑R and 64‑R of 1987. M.I./W‑26/S Order accordingly.