SAEEDIBNEALITIRMIZI Versus PAKISTANWATERANDPOWERDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY
This appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's challenge against his removal from service by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The appellant, a Transport Supervisor, had contested his removal, alleging that the action was motivated by his trade union activities and personal vendettas involving a superior officer. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, erroneously concluding that the appellant had neither alleged nor substantiated any mala fides in his pleadings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had explicitly raised the issue of mala fides in his grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, detailing specific allegations against a Project Director. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was factually unfounded and ignored material evidence on the record. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh determination specifically on the question of whether the removal order was tainted by mala fides, emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleaded facts.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon specific allegations of mala fides if they are pleaded in the grounds of appeal?
- Can an appellate tribunal dismiss an appeal on the basis that mala fides were not alleged when the record demonstrates such allegations were present?
- Does the failure of a tribunal to consider material evidence on the record regarding mala fides warrant a remand of the case?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J: ‑‑ This appeal, with the leave of this Court, is directed against the order dated 14‑7‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (to be hereinafter called as the Tribunal) dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the order of his removal from service passed by respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Brief facts are that the appellant was employed as Transport Supervisor, G.S.O. Circle, WAPDA, Rawalpindi. He was served with a show-?cause notice dated 24‑12‑1988 as to why he should not be retired or removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of the Act due to his acts of omissions and commission containing nine heads of charges as enumerated therein. In his reply, it appears, the appellant had controverted all the allegations and pleaded, inter alia, that the action proposed to be taken against him was motivated by his trade union activities. Simultaneously he approached the National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, for restraining respondent No. 1 from passing any final order on the basis of the impugned order dated 24‑12‑1988. On context, it was held by the Commission on 12‑10‑1991 that notwithstanding the calling of the explanation for a final hearing, the grievance petition remained one under section 17(1‑A) of the Act and dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, a reply was put into the show‑cause notice dated 24‑12‑1988 denying all the allegations in seriatim. After considering reply aforesaid and providing personal hearing to the appellant, respondent No. 1 in exercise of its powers under section 17(1‑A) of the Act "decided to remove the appellant from service with immediate effect giving him thirty days' pay in lieu of notice."
3. Feeling aggrieved of the order aforementioned the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Deducing the ratio from the cases of: (i) WAPDA and another v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18) and (ii) WAPDA v. Sh. Abdul Qadeer (1986 SCMR 1‑541) the Tribunal held that "the appellant during the course of argument had not substantiated any point of mala fide nor he has taken it in the memo. appeal" and it further held the opinion "that in this case mala fide has neither been alleged nor proved and point of `coram non judice' has not been taken" and, therefore, the order of removal from service passed 'against the appellant "was unexceptionable". The appeal was thus dismissed.
4. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the Tribunal was correct to hold that the appellant had neither alleged nor proved `mala fides'.
5. We have heard Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the respondents and have perused the record with their assistance.
6. Ground (f) of the grounds of appeal' before the Tribunal reads as under:‑‑ '
"The appellant has been condemned on the manoeuvring of a driver, namely, Izzat Khan, who was a real brother‑in‑law of former Project Director (GSO) Mr. Azad Afridi. This driver was the subordinate of the appellant. He had been trying to blackmail him for various types of gratifications for obvious reasons. On the refusal of the appellant to play in the hands of the driver, he managed all these things with the help and assistance of his real brother‑in‑law of the former Project Director Mr. Azad Afridi."
It would thus be noticed that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant had not alleged `mala fide', to say the least, is unfounded. The appellant had not only' asserted that the impugned order of his removal from service was tainted with 'mala fides' attributable to a named Project Director but had also furnished some details thereof as well. With respect we would, therefore, observe that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal ignoring the material on the record.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of its dismissal and remand the case to the Tribunal so that it may examine the question whether the impugned order of removal of the appellant from service was tainted with `mala fides.'
A.A./S‑1016/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Case remanded.