1989SCMR895 (PLP)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The respondent was appointed as Junior Clerk in 1975 and after promotion as Upper Division Clerk in 1981 he was working as Sub‑Divisional Clerk in Mustafabad Sub‑Division (Electrical) WAPDA, Lahore. He was retired from service by the Authority vide order, dated 10‑4‑1982 passed under section 17 (1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The order of removal from service was passed on the basis of a report by the Director (Commercial) Liaison, WAPDA, in which he had suggested disciplinary action against him for failure to enter in the official documents, the application form for providing an industrial connection to the applicant. Although the Director had recommended disciplinary action, the Member (Power) recommended that he may be removed from service and thereafter the case was put up to the Authority for orders. The Authority accepted the recommendation and passed the above mentioned order of removal of the respondent from service. The respondent challenged the above order by filing an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, which was accepted by it vide order, dated 19‑4‑1983. Hence this appeal, by leave of this Court. The learned Service Tribunal observed that the decision of the Member (Power) and its approval by the Authority were contrary to the policy guidelines given by the Authority in its Office Memorandum No.GMA(Admn)/AD(REV)/050014(A)/27049‑238, dated 17‑4‑1982 containing instructions regarding the cases which were to be put up for action under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. According to these instructions, recommendations for retirement from service were to be made in respect of the following categories of cases:‑‑ (i) Cases of employees who had established reputation of being corrupt or who were reasonably considered to be corrupt and or were persistently inefficient. (ii) Cases of those who had been tried in Courts on criminal charges but had escaped punishment for lack of sufficient evidence, or for reason of witnesses having been won over or on technical grounds. (iii) Employees who had two or more punishments to their discredit and had not reformed themselves. The Tribunal observed that so far as the case of the respondent was concerned, he did not fall under any of the above categories and, therefore, it was unfair for his case to have been put up before the Authority for action under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. It was held, therefore, that the action taken against the respondent was in contravention of the Authority's own instructions and, therefore, was not a proper and lawful exercise of its power. We have heard Syed lftikhar Ahmad, Advocate, in support of this appeal, as well as Mr.Bashir Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent. We agree with the Tribunal that the impugned action was not a rational and balanced exercise of the unspecified and unfettered powers conferred on the Authority, which have to be exercised properly and reasonably and the instructions, reproduced above, appear to have been issued to ensure reasonableness in the exercise of those vast powers. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order of the Authority impugned before it. The result is that there is no force in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed hereby with costs. A.A./W‑47/S Appeal dismissed.