ABDUL KHALIQ Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)
The petitioner, a Line-Superintendent employed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged a disciplinary penalty of reversion to a lower post for three years. The disciplinary action stemmed from allegations that the petitioner had authorized an unauthorized electricity connection in a village. The petitioner admitted to the act but contended he acted under the verbal orders of his Sub-Divisional Officer. Following unsuccessful departmental representations and a failed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had acted under the orders of his superior, which the Court identified as a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not supported the petitioner's assertion of having received such orders. Consequently, the Court held that the petition did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming the disciplinary outcome.
- Does a contention regarding the factual basis of a disciplinary order raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Can an employee justify unauthorized official actions by claiming they were performed under the verbal orders of a superior who denies giving such orders?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑ The petitioner was a Line‑Superintendent under the respondent‑Authority and was at the relevant time posted in Bhera Sub‑Division. There were allegations against him that he had given electricity connection in a village without authority. He was served with a charge‑sheet and called upon to furnish his explanation. The petitioner submitted his written statement, which was not found satisfactory by the Department. By way of disciplinary action a direction was given that he should revert to the lower post of Line‑Superintendent‑II for a period of three years. He filed a representation against the penalty imposed upon him but without any success. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service. Tribunal but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed before us that the petitioner had given electricity connection to the village without permission of the competent authority. His case however is that he had done so under the verbal orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer. It may be mentioned that the Sub -Divisional Officer was also proceeded against departmentally but was found innocent.
3. The sole question before us is if in giving electricity connection to the village the petitioner had acted under the orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer. It was one of fact. Apparently, the Sub‑Divisional Officer has not supported the petitioner's assertion. However that may be, the contention of the petitioner before us does not raise any substantial question of law of public importance. Leave is refused.
AA. /A‑1070/S Leave refused.