2003 PLP 1949 (SCMR)
FAZAL ELAHI RANA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Lahore and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1949 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL ELAHI RANA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Lahore and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1949 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1949 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1949 (SCMR) (FAZAL ELAHI RANA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Lahore and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mahmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz‑ur -Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Abdur Rehman Madni, Advocate Supreme Court for M. Ozair Chughtai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- 3. Mian Mahmood Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended that the factual and legal aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that no opportunity of personal hearing whatsoever was afforded and no reasoning assigned for retiring him from service which resulted in grave prejudice. It is also contended that the provisions as contained in section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act were altered being ultra vires of Articles 2A, 3, 4, 9, 14 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is urged that no arbitrary powers of retirement have been conferred upon the competent authority under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act and no retirement could be made without assigning any reason which has not been done in this case and the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score alone. It is further pointed out that specific mala fides were alleged which remained unattended resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. It is contended that he was removed from service on account of civil dispute with an influential lady who manoeuvred her compulsory retirement by exerting influence on concerned authorities.
- 4. Mr. A. Rehman Madni, learned Advocate Supreme Court, appeared for caveators and supported the judgment impugned being free from any infirmity or illegality with the further submission that competent authority had exercised its power in accordance with law as conferred upon it under section 17(1‑A) (a) of the WAPDA Act and no illegality whatsoever has been committed. It is also contended that certain allegations leveled against the respondents, could not be substantiated by adducing cogent and concrete evidence and being an afterthought have rightly been discarded by the learned Service Tribunal. It is also pointed out that the vires of section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act have been examined by various judicial forums and it was held that the same are not repugnant to the provisions as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
- 5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. Judgment impugned has been perused. It transpires from scrutiny of record that the petitioner was suspended on 18‑3‑1999 under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 on account of assessment of his style of living beyond his ostensible means. The record further indicates that on 1‑4‑1999 a letter was addressed from the office of Chief Accountant, FESCO Limited, Faisalabad to the Chief Executive, FESCO with the request that statement of allegations against the petitioner be sent for A further proceedings. Before the disciplinary proceedings could be brought to its logical end the petitioner was retired on 23‑4‑1999. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which has been rejected in' a perfunctory and slipshod manner in one sentence "that the orders of the Authority under section 17(1‑A)(a) of the WAPDA Act are final". The prime contention of the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that he was not retired on account of inefficiency or corruption but it was so done at the request of some influential widow, appears to be with substance as is indicative from letter dated 3‑5‑1999 addressed to the Deputy Chairman, WAPDA, House Lahore, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:‑‑
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑2‑2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No.842‑L of 1998). (a) Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.17(1‑A)(a)‑‑‑Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, R.5‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Compulsory retirement from service before conclusion of disciplinary proceedings to its logical end‑‑‑Tribunal dismissed appeal of civil servant in one sentence that "orders of the Authority under S.17(1‑A)(a) of WAPDA Act are final" ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Factum of mala fides found support from correspondence placed on record showing that root cause of retirement of civil servant was not corruption or inefficiency, but was a complaint made by a widow‑‑‑Civil servant though suspended, but could not be charge‑sheeted for non‑providing statement of allegations to Authority concerned, which smacked of mala fides‑‑‑Retirement order was absolutely silent and no reason had been mentioned therein‑‑‑Appeal of civil servant had been decided without assigning any reason‑‑‑Civil servant was unaware about reason of his retirement from service‑‑‑Suspension order found mention regarding style of living beyond ostensible means of civil servant‑‑‑Such charge was dropped as disciplinary proceedings could not be finalized‑‑‑Service Tribunal had decided appeal in a haphazard manner, thus, its judgment could not be termed as a speaking one‑‑‑Supreme Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgments with direction to reinstate civil servant immediately with all back benefits as admissible under rules, and Authority would be at liberty to, initiate fresh action subject to all legal exceptions and strictly in accordance with law. ‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑‑Power of Authority to compulsory retire its employees‑‑ Scope‑‑‑Such power is neither unfettered nor can be used in an arbitrary manner‑‑‑Employee should be apprised of action intended to be taken against him. Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1987 SC 304; Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. WAPDA 1992 SCMR 774 and WAPDA v. Sikandar Ali Abro 1998 SCMR 137 ref. (c) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Corruption must be crushed with iron hands, but in accordance with law and after establishing such accusation. Dater of hearing: 18th March, 2003.
Judgment & Decree
(b) The investigation through Army Cell held Rana Fazal Elahi, AB & AO responsible and recommended that Rana Fazal Elahi be asked to make the payment.
2. Rana Fazal Elahi was placed under suspension by the Chief Accountant, FESCO and attached with ADMN. Section of this office. He does not enjoy good reputation. He has been dewing in the involvement of above mentioned case. However, he has made the payment with the understanding that no departmental action will be taken against him which was guaranteed during the course of disposal. The complaint of above mentioned widow, retirement orders of Rana Fazal Elahi have been received vide No. under reference.
3. In view of above it is felt that the subject individual is being penalized once 'for his offence. Hence, it is requested that his retirement order may kindly be withdrawn as he has already made the payment to the widow. However, he will be proceeded under the E&D Rules, 1978 at our end. Moreover, he would be shifted out from this Region to some other station. (Emphasis provided). (Sd.) (Brig. Muhammad Aslam Khan), Chief Executive FESCO Ltd., Faisalabad."
6. The factum of mala fides further finds corroboration from letter dated 30‑7‑1999 addressed to Director Complaints, WAPDA House, Lahore, which runs as follows:‑‑ Subject: Complaint Regd. No.DC‑4074/99/F Ref.: Your No. 15685 dated 21‑7‑1999. (1) It is correct that complainant has been retired from services under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act on 23‑4‑1999, but his case for retirement from service was not initiated/forwarded by this office. (2) He in collaboration with a civil Naeem was involved in car sale business and in that process he struck up a bargain with Mst. Safia Naz for sale of her car. (3) It would be appropriate to reopen individual's case for reconsideration at our end as to avoid legal implications at later stage in this connection also refer to this Office Letter No.41848 dated 19‑6‑1999". (Emphasis provided). (Brig. Muhammad Aslam Khan), Chief Executive, FESCO, Faisalabad.
7. Besides that it may not be out of place to mention the letter of Brig. Muhammad Aslam Khan, addressed to Deputy Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore, the contents whereof are as under:‑‑ "Ref. telecom, you directed AB & AO Rana Fazal Elahi to report to you for possible reinstatement in the service. Regards and best wishes, Yours sincerely, (Sd.)"
8. The accumulative effects of the above mentioned correspondence would make it abundant clear that the root cause of retirement of the petitioner was not corruption or inefficiency but a complaint made by Mst. Safia Naz. It is worth mentioning that though the petitioner was suspended pursuant to disciplinary proceedings but he could not be charge‑sheeted as statement of allegations was not made available to the authority concerned which smacks of mala fide. There is no denying the fact that under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act an employee can be compulsory retired but this power is neither unfettered nor can be used in an arbitrary manner and the petitioner should have been apprised of the action intended to be taken against him. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:‑‑‑ Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1987 SC
304. Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. WAPDA 1992 SCMR
774. WAPDA v. Sikandar Ali Abro 1998 SCMR 137.
9. The retirement order is absolutely silent and no reasoning whatsoever has been mentioned therein and besides that the appeal of the petitioner was also decided without assigning any reason and petitioner is unaware that as to why he was retired from service. We are of the considered view that corruption must be crushed with iron hands but it should be so done in accordance with law and after establishing the accusation qua corruption. A mention was made regarding his style of living beyond ostensible means of petitioner in the suspension order which, however, could not be substantiated as subsequently the said charge was dropped as disciplinary proceedings could not be finalized. The learned Federal Service Tribunal has also decided the appeal in a haphazard manner and all the contentions raised before it were not decided and thus the judgment impugned cannot be termed as speaking one.
10. In sequel to above mentioned discussion this petition is converted into appeal which is accepted, the order of retirement dated 23‑4‑1999 and the judgment impugned are set aside with the direction that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service immediately with all back benefits as admissible under the rules. The competent authority would, however, be at liberty to initiate fresh action if deemed fit and proper subject to all legal exceptions and strictly in accordance with law. S.A.K./F‑115/S Appeal accepted.