1986 PLP 838 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as they are directed against one and the same order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 1‑8‑1984. The facts which form the background are that 135 T.A. and D.A. bills alongwith other bills were pending, without any positive action, for over six months in the Office of Mr. Nasrullah Piracha. Executive Engineer. Some office‑bearers of the WAPDA Employees Union met him on 28‑8‑1982 with the request to pass necessary orders on the said bills. He promised to do so but instead of passing the bills returned them back on 22‑9‑1982 to the Sub‑Divisional officer concerned for removal of certain objections. This annoyed the employees of the WAPDA and they gathered outside the office of the S.D.O. to protest. The Executive Engineer was also incidentally present there. They started protesting before the office of the S.D.O. and also manhandled the Executive Engineer. This led to the registration by the police of a case against some of the employees involved in this incident. However, all of the persons accused therein were acquitted by the trial Magistrate vide order, dated 14‑9‑1983. But before that date Firdos Khan (respondent in Civil Appeal No. 794/84 and appellant in Civil Appeal No. 795/84) had already been removed from service (on 25‑10‑1982). It appears that Firdos Khan though only a Lineman in the WAPDA was an important office‑bearer of the WAPDA Union and was certainly in the forefront of the protests and demonstration against the X.E.N., wherein the Executive Engineer was mishandled. In view of this circumstance, the taking of disciplinary action against him was clearly indicated. The Tribunal, however, was of the view that the order of removal was too severe and that in all the circumstances the penalty of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice. It was observed in this connection that the action of the Executive Engineer in first delaying the bills and then instead of finalizing them returning them back for removal of certain objections and thereby delaying their disposal still further was not justified. It was further noted that the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Committee, set up to enquiry into this incident by the WAPDA authorities, had found that the objections which were raised on the bills of the employees (who took part in the protests) had not been raised on the bills of some other employees although submitted in similar terms. It observed that this discriminatory and negative attitude of the Executive Engineer was to some extent responsible for the aggressive action taken by the members of the Union. We note that neither side is‑ satisfied with the order of the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for WAPDA the order of the removal from service could not be interfered with. Hence its appeal (Civil Appeal No. 794 of 1984); whereas Firdos Khan feels that even the order of his retirement is not justified as he was entitled to be reinstated into service. Hence his appeal (C . A . No. 795 of 1984) . The powers of the Tribunal in dealing with the appeals against orders of the Service Tribunal is such matters have been examined in a connected appeal arising out of the same incident, namely, WAPDA v. Shah Imroz (C.A. No. 793 of 1984) and it has been held that the Tribunal is competent to suitably interfere in the orders passed by the Authority under section 17(1‑A) of the Act, in given circumstances. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties we feel that order of the Service Tribunal, in the circumstances of this case, is not liable to any interference. Hence both these appeals must fail. The upshot is that both these appeals are dismissed but with no order as to costs. M.I Appeals dismissed