1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).‑‑Nusrat Ali Shah, Clerk, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 10‑3‑1985 passed by the General Manager (G&Gs), WAPDA, Lahore. The appellant has impleaded the Chief Engineer and the General Manager, WAPDA as Respondents Nos.l and 2 respectively.

2. Through this appeal the appellant Nusrat Ali has prayed that the impugned order dated 10‑3‑1985 may be amended so as to allow the appellant his original post with all the benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Nusrat Ali while posted as Head Clerk‑cum‑Accountant in the Grid Station, Kot Lakhpat on the grounds of the commission of irregularities was issued the following charge‑sheet by the Chief Engineer, Electricity, Lahore vide orders dated 29‑3‑1980:‑ (1) The receipt No.1242/5 dated 5‑8‑1976 for Rs.81.30 and Receipt No.1242/6 dated 31‑8‑76 for Rs.199.00. Both the receipts were accounted for inadvertently in the Imprest Cash Book in 9/76 vide page No.51699. Receipt No.1242/7 dated 30‑10‑76, for Rs.29 was accounted for in the Imprest Cash Book in 10/76 vide page 50157. Receipt No.42 for Rs.10 was accounted for in the Collection Cash Book but its number was shown as

41. Receipt No.1242143 for Re.l dated 19‑4‑77 and No.1242144 dated 6‑4‑77 for Re.l were accounted for in the Collection Cash Book for 3/78 and further deposited into Bank vide Pay‑in‑Slip No.44858 dated 7‑3‑78. (2) A sum of Rs.430 on account of one month's pay in lieu of one month notice was deposited by Mr. Nasim SSO.1 while tendering resignation which amount was not deposited by you in the Bank immediately but after a lapse of 6 months, thus you misappropriated Wapda's money for a period of 6 months. (3) A sum of Rs.1,500 was drawn by you from Bank against cheque No.497241 dated 6‑11‑76 as cash for Chest but in the Cash Book an entry of Rs.1,000 was made thus you embezzled Rs.500. (4) A sum of Rs.230 was deposited by you in the Habib Bank vide Bank Challan No.14846 dated 31‑3‑77 without mentioning Wapda Account No. in the Challan. Thus, on one hand Wapda Account could not be given credit of this amount for three years and on the other hand this amount was placed under the head Suspense Account due to your carelessness and negligence. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The departmental inquiry was got held and after conclusion of inquiry the competent authority (Chief Engineer) imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement over the appellant Nusrat Ali Shah vide order dated 13‑5‑1984. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal to the General Manager, WAPDA who converted the penalty of compulsory retirement to reduction of the rank for a period of one year w.e.f. the date the appellant reports for duty. The appellant has filed this appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal with a prayer that the order dated 10‑3‑1985 may be amended so as to allow the appellant his original post with benefits.

4. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not commit any irregularity or misconduct contained in the charge‑sheet. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the appellant had explained his position in his written statement as well as during the inquiry proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the allegations against the appellant are due to personal grudge otherwise no loss was caused to the WAPDA. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while stating that the appellant was punished due to omission in the procedure but this was not properly established.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent (WAPDA) opposed the appeal and raised preliminary objection that the appellant was employee of the WAPDA and had no lien with the Government of Punjab and as such the Punjab Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction because the appellant was not a civil servant. The learned counsel for the respondent further stated that the appellant being the employee of the WAPDA and having no lien with the Punjab Government has un‑necessarily come to seek redress before the Punjab Service Tribunal which has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal cases of WAPDA employees. The learned counsel for the respondents on the merits too explained that in the case of the appellant all the legal formalities and the requirements were fulfilled from the issue of the charge‑sheet followed by holding of the inquiry and issue of the order of the penalty by the Chief Engineer followed by the order of the appellate authority i.e. the General Manager, WAPDA. The learned counsel for the respondent concluded his arguments while stating that actually the General Manager had been very lenient to the appellant while disposing of his appeal because he converted the penalty of the compulsory retirement to that of reduction of rank for a period of one year only w.e.f. the date the appellant reports for duty.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. We have also consulted the relevant record including the departmental written objections. We are of the considered opinion that before we could consider the case on merits the point for determination is whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has any jurisdiction to hear this appeal as objected by the learned counsel for the respondents. Without prejudice to the merits of the case it may be stated that undisputedly the appellant is a WAPDA employee which he has so stated in the appeal and has also impleaded the Chief Engineer, WAPDA and General Manager, WAPDA as respondents. It has been asserted by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant has no lien with Punjab Government. The appellant or his learned counsel have not been able to repel the same to show on basis of any authentic document that the appellant has still a lien with the Punjab Government.

7. Hence the appeal is dismissed because we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. No order for the costs. M.Y.H./50/Sr.P.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal Dismissed as incompetent.