1997SCMR1380 (PLP)
WAPDA, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAMAT ALI BAJWA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997SCMR1380 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAMAT ALI BAJWA‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR1380 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR1380 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and Zia Mahmood Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR1380 (PLP) (WAPDA, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAMAT ALI BAJWA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 13‑10‑1993 in Appeal No. 137(L) of 1991). Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 5‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Employee of Authority‑‑‑Absence from duty without leave for six months‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal modified order of dismissal from service by substituting the same to order of reduction to lowest stage in time‑scale for period of three years without future effect‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner in support of his petition (for leave to appeal), claimed that employee had remained absent without leave for more than six months which constituted misconduct; that employee was rightly punished with dismissal from service which was lawful penalty for misconduct; and that R.5‑A of the Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 relied upon by Service Tribunal was not attracted in employee's case‑‑‑Contention raised would need examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑Karamat Ali Bajwa respondent, a WAPDA employee, was dismissed from service by the competent authority on 24‑10‑1988 as a result of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for having remained absent without leave since 14‑4‑1988. After availing the remedy of departmental appeal, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. It appears that during the course of hearing of the appeal, the respondent's counsel submitted that the case may be examined only in respect of quantum of punishment as in his view, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the guilt of the respondent employee. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Rule 5‑A of the Wapda Employees (Efficiency & Disciplinary) Rules, 1978 which reads as follows:‑ "If an employee does not perform his duties diligently or is an inefficient worker, or is a habitual malinger, that is, a late comer, a wilful absence from duty, or avoids his duties on false pretences a written warning shall be given to him by his immediate superior and if he fails to reform himself a report shall be made within a period of two months from the date of the notice of warning to the officer named below, who may, without prejudice to the provisions of Rules 5 and 6 after obtaining his explanation, impose on him the penalty of stoppage of increment, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect."
2. The Tribunal allowing the request made on behalf of the respondent did not examine the merits of the case and proceeded to hold that keeping in view the charge against the respondent viz that he remained absent from duty without sanction of leave and failed to respond to the explanation letter and the notice got published in "Wapda Khabarnama", "the penalty of dismissal from service was rather harsh and that a lesser punishment would have been sufficient to meet the ends of justice". Order of dismissal from service was accordingly modified and substituted "by an order of reduction to the lowest stage in the time‑scale for a period of three years without future effect". This was vide order of the Tribunal dated 13‑10‑1993 which the petitioners have sought to assail through this petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of this petition, it is contended that the respondent has remained absent without leave for more than six months which constitutes misconduct. He was, therefore, rightly punished with dismissal from service which is a lawful penalty for misconduct. According to the petitioners, Rule 5‑A relied upon by the learned Tribunal is not attracted to the present case. Contention raised needs consideration. Leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is accordingly granted. A.A./W‑158/S Leave granted.