1987 PLP 259 (SCMR)

(c) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Serious allegations of misconduct not established‑‑No material placed before Service Tribunal in support thereof‑‑Accusations of making incorrect statements while obtaining employment also not sustained‑‑Orders of Tribunal to re‑instate employees in service, challenged‑‑Plea that other evidence was available against employee and would be placed before Tribunal if cases were remanded repelled‑‑Appellant had an opportunity to lay all material that it had in its possession against respondent employees before Tribunal and there was no Justification to give another opportunity to it in this regard‑ Reasons given by Tribunal in support of its finding being substantial, impugned order was upheld by Supreme Court. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th November, 1986. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ This judgment will dispose of three appeals, registered as Civil Appeals Nos.8‑R, 9‑R and 10‑R, all of 1985. These appeals arise out of three orders of the same date of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the orders made by the appellant removing the respondents from service were set aside and directions were given that they should be reinstated in service.

2. The respondents were employed as meter readers in the office of the Chairman Area Electricity Board at Lahore. By three separate orders, dated 12‑1‑1983, the appellant removed them from the service without assigning any reason by giving them 30 days pay in lieu of notice in exercise of its powers under section 17 (1‑A) of the WAPDA Act of 1958. The respondents challenged these orders before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant resisted the appeals inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter as an order of removal made in pursuance of the provisions of Section 17(1‑A) ibid, was immune from challenge by virtue of the bar contained in Section 17(1‑C) of the WAPDA Act. It also alleged that on merits, too, the power of removal had been properly exercised. The Tribunal rejected both pleas and set-aside the orders in question.

3. These appeals were admitted primarily to consider the question whether the Service Tribunal was competent to entertain the appeal of a WAPDA employee who had been removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. This question has since been decided in the case of WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 S C M R

18. It has been held in this case that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees and can examine the propriety of an order of removal from service made by the Authority under Section 17(1‑A). This being the legal position it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that the appeals preferred by the respondents before the Federal Service Tribunal were incompetent.

4. It appears that the respondents were removed from service in pursuance of a report submitted by the office of the Chairman of the Area Electricity Board to the Authority wherein it was alleged that they were "incorrigible, corrupt, inefficient, habitual of recording bogus meter readings and stealing of energy in connivance with the consumers. "However, in the proceedings before the Tribunal no material at all was placed which would lend support to any of these allegations; all that was averred was that the respondents had obtained employment as meter readers by incorrectly showing themselves as permanent residents of Lahore. The Tribunal found that these was no material at all to establish that the respondents were not permanent residents of Lahore and in any event there was no motive for the appellant to make an incorrect statement in this regard as residence of Lahore was not a condition precedent for seeking employment as meter reader.

5. The reasons given by the learned Tribunal in support of its finding that there was no material with the appellant for making the impugned order are not insubstantial. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that there was other evidence available against the respondents which if the cases were remanded back to the Tribunal the appellant would be able to lay before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the orders of removal were not made arbitrarily. We find no good ground for remanding the cases to the Tribunal. The appellant had an opportunity to lay all the material that it had in its possession against the respondents before the Tribunal. No justification has been made, out to give another opportunity to it in this regard. 6.For the reasons stated above these appeals are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. M. I. Appeals dismissed.