1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 19th December, 1978. B. G. N. KAZI (MEMBER).‑‑‑Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Khan whey was initially appointed as temporary Junior Engineer on 26th January, 1962 and was later on promoted as Executive Engineer on 19th February, 1968 was removed from service by the respondent under subsection (1‑A) of section 17 of West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958 has filed the instant appeal against the order.

2. It is the case of the appellant that on the basis of the complaint presented by Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) Amanullah Khan the respondent vide order dated 24th June 1976 had placed the appellant under suspension. It was further ordered that during the period of suspension he will draw subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% and other allowance if any admissible under the rules applicable to him. Although the order of suspension was passed under rules 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules no enquiry was ordered to be held against him and soon thereafter that is on 14th September, 1976 the impugned order removing him from service on payment of 30 days` pay in lien of 30 days notice was served on him.

3. This appeal was filed on 28th September, 1976 and admitted for hearing on 20th November 1976. Notice was issued to the respondent and objections were tiled on 23rd May, 1978. The counsel for the respon dent remained absent on the date of final hearing and therefore it was decided to proceed with the appeal ex parte.

4. The appellant has alleged that the impugned order is mala fide as it has been passed on account of personal ill will and malice on the part of the respondent who belonged to the same service cadre as complainant and had good personal relations with him. It is, therefore, his case that Chairman, WAPDA had acted with malice and unfairness.

5. On behalf of the respondent it has been denied that he or his predecessor had any friendly relations with the complainant or that the impugned order was passed out of malice. It is the case of the respon dent that appellant was removed under section 17 (1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that mere denial of allegation with regard to mala fides should not be considered as decisive and that the respondent has chosen to be absent and ex parte to conceal the record which would have shown that his allegation with regard to mina fides on the part of Chairman, WAPDA on the basis of the complaint by Lt. Col. (Recd.) Amanullah Khan was true.

6. The learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Tribunal the fact that it has been admitted that complaint was presented by Lt. Col. (Retd.) Amanullah Khan on behalf of M/s. Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Shafi, Sakhi Muhammad and Ghulam Rasool, residents of Village Boorwali. The respondent vide his order dated 24th June, 1976 had placed the appellant under suspension. It is, therefore, further argued that since suspension of the appellant was ordered under West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 it is very clear that it was sought to take disciplinary action against the appellant under the aforesaid (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and there fore the impugned order of his removal from service was passed in colourable exercise of powers under section 17 (1‑A) of the WAPDA Act as an afterthought after a period of mere than two months had passed during which the appellant was kept under suspension. These are weighty grounds which cannot be overlooked specially when the respondent, as already stated, has not enabled this Tribunal to fully look into the matter by scrutiny of record by remaining absent and ex parte on the date which was fixed for hearing of the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. The appellant be re‑instated in service with full consequential benefits.

7. Parties to be informed. Appeal accepted.