1981 PLP 286 (PLC)

Date of hearing : 11th October 1980. The petitioner is an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority which is respondent in this writ petition. He appeared as a witness for defence before a Summary Military Court which was trying one Abdul Qayyum Khan Arif on a criminal charge. During the course of his statement he is alleged to have made certain highly defamatory allegations against the respondent and its Chairman. By a letter dated 31‑7‑1980 which is Annexure 'H' on the file he was charged with breach of service discipline and asked to submit his reply. The petitioner has challenged the legality of this letter.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is against para. 4 of the above mentioned letter. It reads as follows :‑ "It has been established that you levelled the above allegations with a view to malign and defame the Chairman and other senior officials of WAPDA which amounts to breach of `Service Discipline' and `unbecoming of an employee of the Authority' and by doing so, you are guilty of `misconduct' within the meaning of rule 2(5) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978." The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that so far no inquiry bas been held yet he has been found guilty of misconduct. Thus he has been condemned unheard. This is a breach of the principles of natural justice as embodied in the adage audi alteram partem.

3. The learned standing counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent. He has made a statement at the bar that the question whether the petitioner is guilty of misconduct or not will be decided only after the petitioner has submitted the explanation and the same has been considered by the respondent. In view of this clarification the entire basis of the submission of the petitioner disappears.

4. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are to be governed by the efficiency and discipline rules applicable to the employees of the respondent. The respondent cannot, therefore, proceed against the petitioner except in accordance with these rules. This is no doubt correct. It is to be noticed that the petitioner does not dispute that he has appeared as a witness for defence before the Summary Military Court in the case against Abdul Qayyum Khan Arif. The question whether the statement made by him there was in breach of the service discipline and unbecoming of an employee of the respondent is yet to be decided for so far no disciplinary action against him has been taken. It is, therefore, premature at this stage for him to contend that the respondent has no intention' to abide by the relevant efficiency and discipline rules. 4‑A. Lastly the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that making a statement before the Summary Military Court did not constitute misconduct as the said statement was protected by rule 25 of the Conduct Rules framed by the respondent. This is a matter upon which I am not prepared to comment at this stage. It will be open to the petitioner to take this plea before the respondent in his defence and I have no doubt that the respondent will consider it on merits.

5. I may mention that in this petition the petitioner has also challenged the office order dated 22/24‑6‑1980 whereby he was transferred to the post of Officer on special duty, but no argument has been addressed in this regard.

6. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.