1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MR. JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant, Qaiser Javed while serving as Meter Reader, was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act by order, dated 31-7-1982. He filed a departmental representation to the authority for review of the order on 29-8-1982, but having received no reply, filed the present appeal before us on 12-12-1982 within 120 days of the filing the representation.

2. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, appearing for WAPDA, has raised preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by time. It was contended that against an order passed under section 17(1-A), no representation for review was competent, and, therefore, the time spent by the appellant in pursuing the remedy for review, cannot be excluded while fixing the period of limitation. No doubt, this is so, but there is an application for condonation of delay in this respect. It has been explained to our satisfaction that the Authority has been entertaining review petition from orders under section 17(1-A), and had in some cases actually accepted the review petitions. There are also a general type of letter from the Authority as to how a review petition can be made. No doubt, this is not legal, nevertheless, it is good reason for condoning the delay. In similar other cases also, we have condoned the delay and the present case cannot be made an exception. The delay is accordingly condoned. We propose to decide the appeal on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no serious charge against the appellant for which drastic action of his removal has been taken. Shabbir Ahmad however placed before us a list of irregularities alleged to have been committed by the appellant from 1971 onward. After going through the allegations, we find that none of them was so serious as to call for action of removing the appellant, except a charge of receiving illegal gratification of Rs.500 from a consumer. In this) respect, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the record, and we find that the appellant was actually charge sheeted, but after inquiry held by the Executive Engineer, it was found that the appellant was innocent and that the consumer was himself responsible for the irregularity. No doubt, this finding was ordered by the higher I g authority to be re-examined, but this was done when the matter of the appellant's removal from service was to be taken up. The learned counsel for the appellant has also brought to our notice the fact that in respect of a connection, the appellant detected that the meter had been installed at a place from where a formal order of its disconnection had been) made. He recommended that re-connection order should be passed. His higher officers, however, did not agree with him and recommended that order for change of meter should be passed. Obviously, the recommendation of the appellant was appropriate while that of the senior officer was apparently made to help the consumer, who had been using electricity unauthorisedly. Possibility cannot be excluded that the officers: senior to the appellant were party to the fraud committed by the consumer and the appellant having not connived with them, he was made the victim.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has also brought to our notice the work done by the appellant during his posting in a particular area. It appears that during his posting, the appellant had been showing very high consumption of electricity, but when he was 'transferred from that area, the reading fell considerably. On his re-posting to the same area, the reading again went upward. All this material was not placed before the Authority when the impugned order was passed. The recommendation made to the Authority for taking action is not supported by record or any other evidence.

4. For the reasons stated above, we accepted this appeal and se~ aside the order of removal of the appellant. He is re-instated into 'E service from the date of his removal. However, he shall not be paid for the period he did not work, but the period will count towards hill service and increments, etc. M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.