1998 PLP 266 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through
| Citation | 1998 PLP 266 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAFDAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 266 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 266 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 266 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SAFDAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood‑ul‑Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1996.
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 12‑3‑1995, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.21/6 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 17 (1‑B)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Employee of WAPDA‑‑‑Charge‑sheet against such employee‑‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission setting aside charge‑sheet levelled by Authority against employee‑ Authority proceeded against employee, notwithstanding, order of National Industrial Relations Commission whereby charge‑sheet had been set aside‑‑ Service Tribunal did not interfere in order of dismissal of employee‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider petitioner's contention that charge‑sheet on basis whereof he was, dismissed from service having been set aside by National Industrial Relations Commission, whether all the proceedings taken and dismissal order passed on basis of allegations made in that charge‑sheet were of no legal effect.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Petitioner was served with 'a charge sheet dated 21-1-1993 alleging that he had received illegal gratification from the residents of Mauza Kakey Zayan and had also drawn excessive material from store by preparing wrong estimates. He assailed the validity of this charge-sheet before N.I.R.C. A learned Member of the N.I.R.C. by an ex parte order dated 21-Z-1993 set aside the charge-sheet. WAPDA moved an application before the N.I.R.C. for recalling the ex parte order dated 21-2-1993. It appears that the learned Member of N.I.R.C. suspended the operation of his ex parte order dated 21-2-1993 on 15-11-1994 but ultimately application of WAPDA for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed vide order dated 17-5-1995. It, however, appears that notwithstanding the fact that the charge-sheet in question was earlier set aside by N.I.R.C., WAPDA had been holding the proceedings pursuant to that charge-sheet and finally by an order dated 26-5-1994 dismissed the petitioner from service. Petitioner challenged his dismissal from service in an appeal before the Service Tribunal but with no better result as his appeal has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator. Former has contended, inter alia, that the charge-sheet on the basis whereof petitioner was dismissed from service having been set aside by a learned Member of N.I.R.C. on 21-2-1993, all the proceedings takers and the dismissal order passed on the basis of allegations made in that charge-sheet were of no legal effect. Contention raised needs consideration. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to the petitioner. A.A./M-10/S Leave granted.