WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Lahore and 3 others vs SHAUKAT FARHAN and 9 others
This matter concerns the non-extension of service contracts for Meter Readers employed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), who were denied contract renewal based on allegations of recording fake meter readings. The core legal question was whether the Authority could terminate or refuse to extend contractual employment based on allegations of misconduct without providing an opportunity for a hearing or conducting a formal inquiry, particularly when the employees were governed by specific disciplinary rules. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had remanded the cases to the Authority. The Court held that since the non-extension was explicitly predicated on allegations of misconduct (fake readings), the Authority was obligated to prove these allegations through a regular inquiry, affording the employees a right of hearing. The principle laid down is that where an employer attaches a condition of misconduct to the termination or non-renewal of a contract, the principles of natural justice require that the employee be given an opportunity to defend themselves against such allegations before adverse action is finalized.
- Can an employer refuse to extend a service contract based on allegations of misconduct without conducting a formal inquiry?
- Does an employee governed by the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 have a right to a hearing before termination based on allegations of fake meter readings?
- Is an authority required to prove allegations of misconduct if those allegations form the basis for the non-extension of a contract?
- WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.204-L of 2004 to 213-L of 2004 as these have arisen out of common judgment and involve identical questions of law and facts.
2. Precisely stating facts of the cases are that the respondents were recruited/appointed as Meter Readers in the Multan Electric Power Company/WAPDA initially for a period of one year w.e.f, 1-11- 1999 whereafter their contractual period was extended from time to time and lastly vide Office Order No,257-T-42354/CE/MEPCO/IC, dated 14-12-2001 the Chief Executive granted extension in the contractual period of some of the Meter Readers of Bahawalpur Circle for a period mentioned against the name of each of them. In the end of the Office Order following note was appended:-- "The contract period of Meter Readers having more than one fake reading complaint have been extended upto 15-12-2001 and no further extension will be allowed to them as such they may be relieved on that date."
' It seems that the contracts of the respondents were not extended for the reason that allegedly they made fake meter readings. The orders of not extending the contractual period of the respondents were challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore who vide impugned judgment remanded the cases to the Authority with the following observations: "It is mentioned in appointment orders of the appellants that they would be governed by the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. Since they have been condemned unheard, therefore, they would be proceeded against under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. They shall be given notices for giving fake readings. The respondents shall pass fresh orders considering the defence reply and also merits of each case. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the respondents.
' There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners had no obligation to extend the contract of the respondents after expiry of the period for which extension was given to them, therefore, on the last date of the extended period contracts of service were terminated.
4. We are not, inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the fact that admittedly the respondents' contract was not extended because there were fake meter readings in their record. Keeping in view this angle the Federal Service Tribunal had remanded the cases to the Authority at least to establish on record by evidence the allegations of fake meter reading on which ground their contracts were not extended. This aspect of the case can only be set at naught in regular inquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents and examining the record in accordance with law, because merely on the basis of attributing fake meter readings to them it was not possible to hold that allegation stood proved against them. Since the Authority itself had imposed a condition for extending or otherwise of the contracts of the respondents, therefore, it has an obligation to prove the same accordingly.
5. Thus, in the circumstances we are of the opinion that the Federal Service Tribunal was quite justified in remanding the cases to the petitioner Authority for proceeding afresh in view of the observations made in the concluding para. Of the impugned judgment.
6. For the foregoing reasons we so no merit in these petitions as such the same are dismissed and leave refused.