DADAN KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of the Central Service Tribunal to interfere with the retirement of the petitioner under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act of 1958. The core legal questions involve whether the retirement without assigning reasons based on cumulative usefulness requires communication of Annual Confidential Reports or an inquiry under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, and whether the empowering statutory provision is ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 17(1-A) permit retirement without assigning a reason and without stigma based on cumulative assessment of usefulness, making formal inquiries or communication of ACRs unnecessary. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the competent authority possesses the absolute power under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 to retire an employee without assigning reasons after due notice or pay in lieu thereof, provided no punitive stigma of misconduct is attached.
- Can an employee be retired under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without assigning any reason?
- Whether uncommunicated ACRs reflecting cumulative usefulness can be the basis for retirement without an inquiry?
- Are the provisions of section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 ultra vires?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This leave to appeal petition arises out of refusal by the Central Service Tribunal to interfere with the retirement of the petitioner under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act of 1958. It reads as follows "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any rules made, or orders or instructions issued, by the Authortty, or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, or serving under the Authority it may, at any time, retire-or remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him not less than thirty days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of thirty days."
2. ' Learned counsel contends that the A. C. Rs, relied upon by the Tribunal do not reflect any defect in performance or conduct of the petitioner ; that if they show any misconduct they could not be relied upon without affording him an opportunity of getting them corrected by communication to him in accordance with the prescribed procedure ; that in any case if it was so, his services could not be terminated without proceeding under Efficiency and Discipline Rules ; and lastly that the provisions contained in section 17(I-A) are as he put it ultra vires. In this behalf he has relied upon a leave granting order Karamat Hussain v. WAPDA through its Chairman (1) as also an Indian case reported as Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (2).
3. None of the arguments has any force. The A. C. Rs, do not show any misconduct. They relate in a cumilative way to the further usefulness of the petitioner in his own department. And that is why it was not necessary to communicate the same to him nor were they to be made the basis of any enquiry against him. And as there was no question of misconduct or stigma, this case is clearly distinguishable from the one reported in Karamat Hussain's case. The other case cited by the learned counsel with respect is not relevant in this matter. Lastly he remained unable to show as to what the relevant provision is ultra wires.
4. ' This petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) NLR 1982 Lab. 6 (2) PLD 1958 SC (Ind.) 217 {{FOOT NOTE}}