1990 PLP 1429 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1429 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1429 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1429 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1429 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 26‑1‑1986 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 712/1, of 1982). West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 5(iv)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Competent Authority is empowered to decide whether a formal inquiry in case should or should not be held in case, charges in case entirely based upon official record having fully been substantiated against petitioner‑‑‑Held, it could not be said that in deciding not to hold formal inquiry against petitioner, competent Authority had acted arbitrarily‑‑‑No error of law in view taken by Service Tribunal having been found, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN. J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a Meter‑reader in the Shahdara Sub‑Division of the Water and Power Development Authority. There were allegations against him that he had failed to furnish basic data, had accumulated reading units and supplied wrong reading. On 23‑1‑1982 the competent authority (Executive Engineer) served him with a show cause notice why a major penalty be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply. He was given an opportunity to appear in person before the competent authority but it is not clear from the record whether he availed it or not. However, that may be, the competent authority did not find his explanation satisfactory and by an order dated 15‑2‑1982 dismissed him from service. The petitioner approached the Labour Courts for relief and was successful but the High Court in writ jurisdiction quashed those orders. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed it. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. The, main grievance of the petitioner before us is that no formal inquiry was held by the competent authority before dismissing him from service. It is to be noticed that under Rule 5(iv) Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 the decision whether a formal inquiry should or should not be held lies with the competent authority. In this case the charges were based entirely upon the official record. It cannot be, therefore, said that in deciding not to hold a formal inquiry the competent authority acted arbitrarily. As regard merits, the learned Tribunal examined the record and held that the charges against the petitioner were fully substantiated. We arc unable to find any error of law in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Leave is refused. H.B.T./A‑625/S Leave refused.