1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑0n‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th June, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment order of Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 21‑11‑1995 in Appeal No. 230(L) of 1995). West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Employee of Authority‑‑‑Removal from service for misconduct‑‑‑Service Tribunal reduced penalty to that of compulsory retirement‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's contentions were two‑fold; that in his case regular inquiry should have been conducted and penalty ought not to have been imposed upon him only after receipt of his reply to show‑cause notice; and that provision of S.17(1‑A), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 allows officer concerned fourteen days for prepare his reply to show‑cause notice but petitioner was given only ten days for that purpose‑‑‑Petitioner's both contentions were without any merit‑‑‑Action had been taken against petitioner under S.17(1‑A) of the Act which does not require that regular inquiry should be conducted before orders of retirement or removal from service were made by Competent Authority‑‑‑As regards duration of notice, petitioner had at no stage complained that on account of short time given to him for preparing his reply he was prejudiced in his defence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was serving in the respondent‑Authority as Budget and Accounts Officer in Hyderabad. There were allegations that a large sum had been paid .to a gas‑filling station at Suddu fraudulently. An enquiry was held by the Finance Member. He found a number of persons including the petitioner responsible for the over payments. Consequently, all those on whom the responsibility fell were served with notices under section 17(1‑A) Water and Power Development Authority Act. After receipt of the replies varying punishments were imposed on them. The petitioner who had been an employee of the Authority for a long time was removed from service. After his ‑ departmental representation received no favourable response he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal rejected his appeal on merits but reduced the penalty to that of compulsory retirement. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition two contentions have been raised. To begin with, it was argued that it was a case where a regular inquiry should have been held and the penalty ought not to have been imposed upon the petitioner only after the receipt of his reply to the show‑cause notice. The second contention is that section 17(A), ibid, allows the officer concerned fourteen days to prepare his reply to the show‑cause notice but the petitioner was given only ten days in this regard.
3. Both contentions are without any merit. The action has been taken against the petitioner under section 17(1‑A), Water and Power Development Authority Act. The section as it is worded does not require that a regular inquiry should be held before the orders of retirement pr removal from service are made by the competent Authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that a full‑fledged inquiry ought to have been held in his case is not acceptable. As regards the duration of the notice, it may be mentioned that the petitioner had at no stage complained that on account of the short time given to him for preparing his reply he was prejudiced in his defence. We are, therefore, not prepared to grant him leave to appeal to consider this contention alone.