1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ‑‑‑Petitioner, an employee in WAPDA seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 21‑7‑1993 whereby his appeal directed against the imposition of penalty on him has been dismissed.

2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner was served with a letter dated 1‑4‑1992 calling his explanation regarding installation of 22 numbers bogus connections in Bhai Pheru and Chunian Sub‑Division. The precise allegations levelled against the petitioner are reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "(1) You admitted before the Enquiry Committee that you have prepared the basic date form to the 22 Nos. illegal connections for billing purpose from Computer where no SCC/demand notice were received/issued from the Sub‑Division. (2) You got signature of Mr. Ahmed Din (Assistant) fraudulently and allotted fictitious Despatch No. of Revenue Office WAPDA, Chunian on the covering memo. (CP‑80) to the said input, for feeding to Computer Centre, Lahore. You took the said input personally to WAPDA Computer Centre on 7‑5‑1991 to ensure billing. (3) You have admitted before Enquiry Committee that you arranged bogus billing to another commercial connection in the name of Muhammad Mansha. s/o Nawab Din r/o Bhai Pheru against Ref. No. 1432 22760262 vide Application No. 503‑A‑II, dated I8‑10‑1990 with the help of Mr. Muhammad Hayat, IM GSO, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Amir (U.D.C.). Whereas the actual Ref. No. allotted to the said application No. was 1432‑12670262 by Bhai Pheru Sub‑Division. (4) You changed the name of the above bogus Ref. No. as Zahoor Ahmed s/o Abdul Aziz, Market No. 2 Eidgah Road, Bhai Pheru on a simple application which was written by your own handwriting without supporting documents and papers from Sub‑Division in order to restore the billing against the actual Reference No. 1432‑12670262 against the same application No. (5) You made fictitious signature of Mr. Ahmad Din (Assistant) as sign of approval on the input date (CP‑80 and CP‑138) for feeding and effecting in Computer record. (6) You have been granted illegal gratification from the consumers in connection with bogus billing to the above illegal connections. (7) You have deprived the Authority with heavy cost of estimates and security amount etc. and the material thus utilised for installation of those illegal connections has been misappropriated."

3. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 26‑4‑1992 which did not find favour with the competent Authority and he was served with final show‑cause notice dated 16‑12‑1992 in terms of Rule 5(v)(b), Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978. Petitioner submitted his reply to the notice on 2‑1‑1993 with which the competent Authority was not satisfied and consequently by order dated 30‑1‑1993 passed by Superintending Engineer, a penalty was imposed on him to "reduce him and place him at initial stage of his present time‑scale of pay viz. Rs.1,095‑60‑95 at Rs.1,095 p.m. for a period of five years with immediate effect and without affecting his future increment after the expiry of penalty period". Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner after availing the departmental remedy approached the Service Tribunal in an appeal which as stated above has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has contended that the Chief Engineer was his competent Authority but the impugned penalty was imposed by the Superintending Engineer. Petitioner raised this contention before the Service Tribunal but the Tribunal repelled it by holding that under the WAPDA Employees (Power Wing) Delegation of Powers Rules, Superintending Engineer was competent to award the impugned penalty. Learned counsel points out that in a similar case, the Service Tribunal has already held in Service Appeal No. 124(L)/91, decided on 17‑1‑1993 that the Chief Engineer was competent to impose the penalty. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that in view of the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the departmental authorities to hold a factual enquiry in the absence of which the allegations could not be substantiated. It is submitted that the respondent authorities acted illegally in dispensing with the enquiry and thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair and proper opportunity to defend himself.

5. The contentions raised need consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal to examine, inter alia, the afore‑noted contentions. A.A./A‑1421/S Leave granted.