WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus ANWAR ALI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against an order of the Service Tribunal. The respondent, employed as a Lower Division Clerk by WAPDA, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. While the Service Tribunal found that there was sufficient material before the Authority to make the impugned removal order, it nevertheless converted the order of removal into one of retirement with consequential retiring benefits, taking into account the respondent's twelve years of service. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal acted in proper exercise of its jurisdiction in altering the penalty of removal to retirement despite finding sufficient material to justify the initial order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of the Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction in modifying the penalty.
- Whether the Service Tribunal can convert an order of removal from service into an order of retirement after finding sufficient material to justify the removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Does the Service Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to mitigate a penalty lawfully imposed by the competent authority under the WAPDA Act on compassionate grounds such as length of service?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J .--The respondent was employed as a Lower Division Clerk by WAPDA. He was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act by the order dated 12-1-1983. He filed an appeal against the said order before the Service Tribunal. The learned Service Tribunal held that:-
2. "There was sufficient material before the Authority in making the impugned order under Section 17(1-A)".
3. But went on to add as follows:-
4. "However, taking into consideration 'the fact that the appellant (petitioner herein) had served the authority for over 12 years, we think that appropriate order would be an order of retirement from service and not of removal. The appeal is, therefore, partly accepted and the impugned order of removal is converted to that of an order of retirement from service with consequential retiring benefits."
5. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by WAPDA to challenge the last part of the order whereby the order of removal has been converted into one of retirement with consequential retiring benefits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Service Tribunal is not legal and has not been passed in proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it, in the circumstances of this case.
7. Leave granted.
8. The case to be heard on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents at a very early date.
9. The interim order of stay to continue meanwhile.
10. S.Q./W-13/S Leave granted.