1987 PLP 1947 (SCMR)

S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This appeal is from the judgment dated 18-10-1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal; whereby the service appeal of the respondent against the order of his removal from service of WAPDA was allowed. 2. The respondent, who was working at the relevant time as Budget and Accounts officer in the office of the Director Accounts, Area Electricity Board (Power), Multan, was proceeded against under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was removed from service by an order dated 21-7-1982 purported to have been passed by the Authority, without assigning any reason by giving him 30 days pay in lieu of notice." The order was issued under the signature of Deputy Director (Confidential), WAPDA, Lahore. The appeal of the respondent from the above order was allowed by the Service Tribunal solely on the ground that all the members of the Authority had not agreed to his removal and therefore, in legal effect, there was no order of removal and the purported order was of no consequence. It was, therefore, held that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service throughout with all the benefits of service. 3. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention, raised on behalf of the appellant, that material available on the record had been misread by the Tribunal in reaching the conclusion that the Authority had not passed any order of removal of the respondent. 4. The term "Authority" has been defined in subsection (i) of section 2 of the Act and means the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority established under section 3 of the Act. Section 3 provides for the establishment of an Authority for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Such Authority, as provided in section 4 of the Act, is to consist of a Chairman and not more than three members appointed by the Government. Admittedly the Authority constituted under section 4, at the relevant time, comprised of the Chairman and four Members, namely, Members Finance, Water and Power. There is no dispute that any order of removal of a person in the service of WAPDA could only be passed by the Authority and it was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that decision in this behalf was necessarily to be unanimous; although it was urged that the meeting of the Authority was not necessary as contemplated in section 7 of the Act and an order could also be passed by circulation of the minutes amongst the persons comprising the Authority. 5. The record of the case was placed before the learned Tribunal, which on scrutiny of the same came to hold that there existed no order of removal of the respondent passed by the Authority on the record. It was observed that an order of removal under section 17(1-A) of the Act is a very material and important order and when such an order is passed, it should be a speaking order and not vague it was found that as far as Member (Water) and the Chairman were concerned there comments did not, in .so many words, say that they had agreed to the removal of the respondent from service. The order of the Member (Power) too was not specific because there was no mention therein that he was ordering removal of the respondent from service under section 17(1-A) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the various notings on the file, photo copy whereof has been placed on the record, and attempted to show that by reading various notes that the Chairman and Member (Power) are deemed to have approved the removal of the respondent from service under section 17(1-A) of the Act. 7. According to the relevant notes, as mentioned in the order of the Tribunal, the question of removal of the respondent alongwith ten other persons was first initiated by the Member (Power) who vide his note dated 16-7-1982 had agreed to the proposal that the case should be dealt with under section 17(1-A). The said note reads as under: "47. After my orders at para 44, I reconsidered the case and came to the conclusion that suspension and long proceeding is not going to help. I, therefore, asked G.M. (D) to re-submit the case, I agree that we should deal with the case under section 17(1-A). G.M. (Admn.) to please put up the case for orders of the Authority on Sunday the 18th positively. It appears that as proposed in the above note the case was not put up for the orders of the Authority "on Sunday the 18th". The file was then put up before the Deputy Director (Confidential) whose recommendation is contained in notes 48 to 52. It was suggested by the said officer that simple removal of the 11 employees named in paragraph 49/ante, which included the name of the respondent, would not help the Authority to recover the huge amount which had been defrauded by them. However, in the last paragraph No.52 it was recommended by him as follows: "52. Before the case is referred to G.M.(D) for registering a case with the police against the accused employees for the recovery of the amount involved, the case may please be submitted before the Authority for approval to remove the 11 employees, mentioned in para 49 above, from service with immediate effect, under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, without assigning any reason by giving them 30 days pay in lieu of notice, as required under the law. (Sd.) Deputy Director (Confdl) WAPDA 18-7-1982" The file was then marked by the Deputy Director (Confidential) to the General Manager (Admn), who in turn, recommended that the Authority may approve the suggestion contained in the above-mentioned paragraph with the exception of the case of Ghulam Mustafa Shaad. His such recommendation, with other comments, is contained in paragraphs Nos. 53 to 57. The Member (Power) vide his note as serial No.58 also agreed with the recommendation of the General Manager (Admn). At serial No.59 and 60 appears the notes of Member (Power) dated 19-7-1982 who too agreed with the recommendation of the General Manager (Admn). 7. After going through the various notes, referred to above, it appears that all the Members, including the Member (Power), had agreed to the removal of the respondent alongwith other persons from service under section 17(1-A) of the Act. The dispute in the circumstances, is with regard to the order, if any, passed by the Chairman. The relevant note of the Chairman, vide paragraph No.61, is reproduced hereunder: "61. One of the main flaws is that people in WAPDA have never gone out to visit and inspect. If the Finance, the Audit, the commercial and the Distribution people in HQ visit, we will have fewed frauds. Please instruct your people to visit under a regular programme. (Sd.) Chairman, WAPDA 21-7-1982. Member (Water) 21-7-1982." The above note does not contain any reference whatsoever to any previous notes and, on the face of it, is an independent note of the Chairman. It is not possible to read or even remotely infer anything from the same about the removal of the respondent from service under section 17(1-A) of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to a note of the General Manager (Admn) dated 28-7-1982 at serial No.62, which was signed by the Member (Power) and the Chairman on 7-8-1982. The said note exclusively dealt with the case of Ghulam Mustafa Shaad and the General Manager, through the said note, had sought the approval of the Authority for re-consideration of his case till the report of the Inquiry Committee was received. Such proposal alone was put up for approval before the Authority and was signed by the Member (Power) and the Chairman. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, has no force that the Chairman had subsequently granted approval to the retirement of the respondent as alleged. 9. After going through the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal and the various office nothings brought on .the record, we are satisfied that the findings of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment are unexceptionable. No other contention was raised. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs. S.Q./W-6/S Appeal dismissed.