1987 PLP 2007 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD AHMED‑‑Appellant Versus WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2007 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MAHMOOD AHMED‑‑Appellant Versus WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2007 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2007 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2007 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD AHMED‑‑Appellant Versus WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi. Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 19‑5‑1984, passed in Appeal No.137(R) of 1984). (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 4‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1‑A) a (1‑C)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether in view of complete ouster of jurisdiction under S. 17(1‑C) of WAPDA Act, Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with orders of WAPDA, in respect of its employees. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 4‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1‑A), (1‑C)‑‑Removal of WAPDA employee from service‑‑Question of jurisdiction of Service Tribunal in such matters stands decided in 1986 S C M R 18‑‑Service Tribunal coming to conclusion that there was convincing evidence against appellant for alleged acceptance of illegal gratification and dismissing his appeal‑‑Finding arrived at by Service Tribunal found to be based on appraisal of evidence which did not require any interference‑‑Appeal having no merit dismissed. WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 S C M R 18 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 19‑5‑1984.
2. The appellant was a Stenographer in the WA PDA Cantt. Division, Gujranwala, and was placed under suspension with effect from 30‑7‑1980 because of his arrest by the Anti‑Corruption Police for accepting illegal gratification. He was, however, re‑instated on 26‑3‑1981. The appellant was again charge‑sheeted but the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 5‑3‑1981 recommended departmental action against the appellant. As a general policy, the WAPDA decided that persons against whom criminal cases had been registered should be removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. Thus, the appellant was removed from service vide order dated 19‑1‑1983. After failing to seek redress through departmental appeal, the appellant approached the Federal Service Tribunal by way of an appeal which was dismissed through the impugned order.
3. Leave was granted in this case to consider whether in view of the complete ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1‑C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, the learned Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with the orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed or serving under it.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order of the learned Tribunal. As for the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the same has since been decided by this Court in the case reported as WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 S C M R
18. As for the merits, the same have been scrutinized by the learned Service Tribunal who after inspecting the record came to the conclusion that there was convincing evidence against the appellant for the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification and thus dismissed his appeal. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the finding arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal is based on appraisal of evidence and thus does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. S. Q. /M‑187/S Appeal dismissed.