1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 3 others Versus SHAN ELAHI
| Citation | 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 3 others Versus SHAN ELAHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 3 others Versus SHAN ELAHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record and Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 7‑7‑1992 passed in Appeal No. 217(L) of 1989). West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr. 8(b) & 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)‑‑‑Order of dismissal from service‑‑‑Service Tribunal converting order of dismissal into order of reduction to the lowest stage in time scale for a period of two years‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Points raised in petition were that appeal before Service Tribunal having not been pressed on merits, reduction in the penalty was not justified; in another case with similar facts leave had been granted by the Supreme Court which appeal was pending; and that provision of R. 5(a), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, relied upon by Service Tribunal was not attracted to the facts of the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the points raised.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Respondent Shan Elahi was working as Assistant Line Man, when he made an application for two years leave extraordinary without pay, which was not allowed by the competent authority. He remained absent and since notice could not be served on him, it was published in WAPDA Khabarnama dated 20‑4‑1989. Competent authority acting under Rule 8(b) of WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 passed order of dismissal from service, being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to serve show‑cause notice upon respondent as contemplated under Rule 5 of the said Rules. After failing in departmental appeal, respondent had filed appeal before the Service Tribunal, which is accepted in part to the extent that order of dismissal is substituted by order of reduction to the lowest stage in time scale for a period of two years.
2. WAPDA as petitioners seek leave to appeal on the grounds that since appeal before the Tribunal was not pressed on merits, reduction in the penalty to the extent mentioned above, is not justified and in another case with similar facts, leave has been granted by this Court (C.P.S.L.A. No. 801‑L of 1990) on 25‑11‑1990, which appeal is pending. Secondly that Rule 5(a) of the said Rules is not attracted in the instant case for the reason that it applies to an inefficient worker or habitual malingerer.
3. We grant leave to examine the above contentions. AA./W‑122/S Leave granted.