1989SCMR843 (PLP)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR843 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR843 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR843 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR843 (PLP) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1989.
- Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- 2. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the misconduct attributed to the respondent was fully established inasmuch as, on twenty occasions, he had wrongly recorded the meter‑reading of the consumers. Taking strong exception to his conduct the competent authority had passed an order of his dismissal from service. On an appeal by the respondent, the Tribunal not finding any fault with the finding of the competent authority on the question of misconduct, substituted the penalty of dismissal without giving any reason whatsoever. The only observation made by the Tribunal in this respect is as follows:‑‑"
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 5-11-1988 passed in Appeal No.273(R)/87).
Art.212(3)--Penalty of dismissal from service modified by Service Tribunal as penalty of removal from service--Legality of--Power possessed by Service Tribunal has been competently exercised by it--Order passed by Service Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction raised no question of law of public important as might justify appeal--Leave to appeal was, therefore, refused. M. Yamin Oureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another P L D 1980 S C 22 and SA. Rizvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another P L D 1980SC40re1.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑WAPDA seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 5‑11‑1988 whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was substituted by the Tribunal by removal from service.
2. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the misconduct attributed to the respondent was fully established inasmuch as, on twenty occasions, he had wrongly recorded the meter‑reading of the consumers. Taking strong exception to his conduct the competent authority had passed an order of his dismissal from service. On an appeal by the respondent, the Tribunal not finding any fault with the finding of the competent authority on the question of misconduct, substituted the penalty of dismissal without giving any reason whatsoever. The only observation made by the Tribunal in this respect is as follows:‑‑" "As regards penalty, we are of the view that in peculiar circumstances of the case, the order of dismissal from service deserves to be converted into that of removal from service and we order accordingly. With this modification the appeal is rejected." This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is not a sufficient ground for interfering with punishment competently awarded.
3. A power possessed by the Tribunal has been exercised by it. In the case of M. Yamin Oureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another P L D 1980 S C[ 22 and S.A. Rizvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another P L D 1980 S C 40, the amptitude of the powers of the Service Tribunal as an appellate authority has been dealt with. As the impugned order of the Tribunal has been competently passed, it raises no such question of law of public importance as may justify an appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Hence leave to appeal is refused. A.A./W‑49/5 Leave to appeal refused.