1990SCMR1465 (PLP)
BASHIR AHMAD TAHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1465 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD TAHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1465 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1465 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1465 (PLP) (BASHIR AHMAD TAHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 16‑10‑1984 in Appeal No.663(L) of 1982). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Removal from service‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner's appeal again‑,t removal order passed by Authority below was dismissed by Tribunal observing that "for an order under S.17(1‑A), establishment of charge is not necessary. If in opinion of Authority for good reasons, continuance of a person in service was not desirable, order under S.17(1‑A) was well‑justified"‑‑Petitioner contended that if at all he was guilty of misconduct or inefficiency then at the most disciplinary action could be taken against him and not one under S.17(1‑A)‑‑Contention was repelled and in absence of any error of law of otherwise, Supreme Court refused to interfere in order passed by Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This petition was dismissed for non -prosecution. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was restored to its original number. We allowed the learned counsel to address us on merits. The petitioner was a Line Superintendent in WAPDA. He was removed from service under section 17(1‑A) by order, dated 31‑7‑1982 passed by the Deputy Director (Confidential), WAPDA. He went before the Federal Service Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed on 16‑10‑1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his removal under section 17(1‑A) was illegal because he was never found to be guilty of misconduct or inefficiency. According to the learned counsel, if at all there was any such thing then at the most disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner and not one under section 17(1‑A). We do not agree with the learned counsel. On the other hand, we think that the Tribunal was justified in observing that "for an order under section 17(1‑A) the establishment of the charge is not necessary. If in the opinion of the Authority for good reasons, the continuance of a person in the service is not desirable, then an order under section 17(1‑A) is well justified." The Tribunal rightly made the aforesaid observations. In the absence of any error of law or otherwise which would justify our interference in the impugned order, leave is refused. Dismissed. H.B.T./B‑127/S Leave refused.