1988 PLP 1247 (SCMR)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is an appeal by special leave from the order, dated 24‑6‑1979 of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the appellant from the order directing his removal from service.

2. The appellant joined service under the respondent as Sub- Divisional Officer. He was served with a charge‑sheet for drawing about 100 yards of wire in violation of a ban imposed by his department. Later, without holding any inquiry into the said charge he was removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1956. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but it met with no success.

3. In support of this appeal it is contended that after the appellant had been served with a charge‑sheet a departmental inquiry should have been held so that he could clear his position, and that, in the circumstances, it was not open to the respondent to take recourse to the provision of section 17(1‑A) in order to remove him from service. This contention is clearly untenable. A similar contention was raised in Water and Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Ali 1987 SCMR 261 and was rejected; it was held that where the law provided the competent authority with two different modes of terminating the services of its employees, the mere fact that it had, to begin with, elected to act under one mode would not in the absence of any bar in the law preclude it from taking resort to the second mode at a later stage. This view was based on two earlier judgments of this Court reported as Abdul Karim v. West Pakistan Province P L D 1956 S C 298 and Secretary, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v . Sekandar Mian 1970 S C M R 398.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that his case should be remanded to the Service Tribunal for examining whether there were sufficient grounds for terminating his service. In support of his request, he referred to the decision of this Court in Water and Power Development Authority v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SC MR 18 where it was held that despite the provisions contained in clauses (1‑A) and (1‑C) of section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, the Service Tribunal was competent to entertain the appeals relating to the terms and conditions of the employees of the respondent. He also referred to the case of Karamat Hussain v. Water and Power Development Authority 1987 S C M R

242. In this case the appeal was remanded to the Service Tribunal for considering whether the order of removal from service was not discriminatory. We can find no justification for granting the request. The case of the appellant was examined by the learned Tribunal and it found that there was no evidence that the order of termination of service was mala fide. In his memorandum of appeal the main ground taken by the appellant was that after he had been served with a charge‑sheet it was not open to the respondent to remove him from service without holding an inquiry. As already observed, this ground had no substance. That being so, no basis for remanding the matter to the Tribunal has been established.

5. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. M.Y.H./E‑6/S Appeal dismissed.