1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of aforementioned petitions for leave to appeal in which identical questions of law require consideration.

2. The respondents were removed from service of Wapda after they were served with notices charging them with embezzlement/mis appropriation of public money amounting to Rs. 5,31,169 and deliberate concealment of cash vouchers worth Rs. 26,24,865 to avoid further detection of fraud/misappropriation. Feeling aggrieved with their removal from service vide order dated 5‑5‑1996, the respondents filed separate departmental appeals and after expiry of 90 days thereof preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal which accepted their appeals and remanded the case of WAPDA for re‑consideration, inter alia, on the ground that when an employee is proceeded against in respect of inefficiency, indiscipline and misconduct, he can only be proceeded against under WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules and that action under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958 cannot be taken against the employee.

3. Mr. S.M. Masud, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of the judgment of this Court in Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. Water and Power Development Authority (1992 SCMR 774), the view taken by the Tribunal is not sustainable. Mr. S.M. Masud also relied on WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18, to contend that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of the reviews of the order of Authority has been restricted to the decision being mala fide and legally infirm but no such deficiency existed in the order of the Authority removing the respondents from service, therefore, there was no justification for interference by the Tribunal. Mr. S.M. Masud also argued that although, in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of WAPDA v. Fida Muhammad Khan (1996 SCMR 639), the Federal Service Tribunal, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, is empowered to alter, modify or even substitute the order under appeal with any order, if that was considered more appropriate in circumstances, but in the instant case there were serious allegations of misconduct against the respondents and the action was taken by the petitioners against them after affording, them adequate opportunity of hearing but allegations of misconduct stood proved on record, therefore, the Federal Service Tribunal was not justified to remand the case.

4. Leave to appeal has since been granted by this Court in C.Ps Nos.517 of 1996,93/1997, 1504‑L and 1507‑L of 1996 and C.P. No.282‑L of 1997 to examine the scope and true import of the provisions of section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act, 1958, leave to appeal is also granted in A these petitions which shall be heard alongwith the connected appeals. The office is directed to fix these appeals before the appropriate Bench before summer vacations. Operation of the impugned order is suspended except in the case of Muhammad Ilyas respondent in C.P. No. 372‑L of 1997 as he has already been reinstated persuant to the impugned order. A.A./W‑2/S Leave granted.