1989 PLP 1663 (SCMR)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1663 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1663 (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 1663 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1663 (SCMR) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 10‑2‑1986 in Appeal No. 331‑R of 1984) ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)‑‑Point regarding competency of officer who passed order was raised before the Tribunal but it was not decided because the order had been implemented by re‑instatement of respondent in service notwithstanding lack of its validity or competency of the functionary who passed it‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the principle regarding an order having been acted upon could not be invoked in this case; the order passed was not valid and that it was passed without jurisdiction; that no departmental appeal having been filed by respondent against order of setting aside of re‑instatement order the appeal before Tribunal was not competent and that it was incumbent on the Service Tribunal not to allow respondent's appeal without examining the correctness or otherwise of the finding of misconduct against the respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 4‑6‑198ti of the Federal Service Tribunal; whereby the. appeal of the respondent an employee of the present petition/WAPDA, was allowing.
2. The respondent was dismissed from service on serious charge of misconduct. He filed a departmental appeal which according to the petitioner was partly allowed by person other than the competent authority. The order of dismissal was set aside. However, the four annual increments of the respondent were "stopped without future effect". This so‑called appellate order was passed on 29‑5‑1984. Another Officer claiming to be the competent authority passed an order on 4‑7‑1984 whereby the order dated 29‑5‑1984 was set aside. The respondent challenged the order dated 4‑7‑1984 in appeal before the Service Tribunal. The same was allowed with the effect that order dated 29‑5‑1984 was restored. The petitioner, therefore, has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Although the point regarding competency of the officer who passed the order dated 29‑5‑1984 was raised before the Tribunal, it was not decided for the reason that according to the Tribunal, it having been implemented by re‑ instatement of the respondent in service, it could not be ignored notwithstanding lack of its validity or competency of the functionary who passed it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the principle regarding an order having been acted upon could not be invoked in this case; that the order passed 29-5-1984 was not valid and further that it was passed without jurisdiction; that no departmental appeal having been filed by the respondent against order dated 4-7-1984, the appeal before the Service Tribunal was not competent; and lastly, that it was incumbent on the Service Tribunal not to allow the respondent s appeal without examining the correctness or other wise of the finding of misconduct against him. The question raised in this petition require examination. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. The impugned order is suspended in the meanwhile. M.A.K./W-60/S Leave granted.