MUHAMMAD AFZAL VIRK, S.D.O. Versus CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, GUJRANWALA

SYED DEEDAR HUSSIAN SHAH, J.‑‑ ‑This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 24‑4‑1995, passed in Appeal No.366(L) of 1994.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant Muhammad Afzal Virk, who was serving as S.D.O., Bhopalwala Sub‑Division WAPDA in the year 1991‑92, was proceeded under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), with the issuance of an explanation letter dated 17‑1‑1993 for the acts of omissions and commissions. He replied to the explanation on 13‑2‑1993, refuting the charge, which was not found acceptable. After affording the opportunity of personal hearing, the competent Authority issued show‑cause notice to the appellant stating therein as to why penalty of withholding of increments for two years without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.39,250 may not be imposed upon him. He submitted his reply dated 2‑4‑1993, which was also not found satisfactory, and the Chairman Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala, vide order dated 18‑4‑1993 imposed the penalty of withholding of increments for two years without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.39,250 on the appellant. His departmental appeal was partly accepted by the G.M. Admin (Distribution) WAPDA, Lahore, on 10‑5‑1993, to the extent that penalty of withholding of increments for two years was set aside and recovery of Rs.39,250 remained in tact, vide order dated 15‑4‑1994. He then preferred an appeal, which was dismissed with costs by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment.

3. Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss as required under rule 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Rules, could not be imposed upon the appellant, as no loss was caused to the WAPDA respondents; that for the imposition of minor penalty of recovery, it is necessary that the loss, if any suffered by the respondents, should be proved; that the Tribunal had not considered the version of the appellant in its proper perspective and impugned judgment is result of the misreading and non‑reading of the material available with the Tribunal.

4. Mr. M. Saleem Chaudhary, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents vehemently controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant by contending that the penalty, as ordered by the competent Authority and upheld by the learned Tribunal, is within the parameters of rule 4 of the Rules referred to hereinabove; that loss of an amount of Rs.39,250 caused to the WAPDA at the hands of the appellant was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and the Tribunal had considered the entire case in its proper perception.

5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the record available. It is a matter of record that consumer Yawar Saeed Cheema on 23‑11‑1991 submitted an application for electricity connection for his poultry farm, which is categorized as Industry under Tariff 07‑A 1. The Division Manager, being the competent Authority for sanctioning such connection, sanctioned the connection in his favour. In pursuance whereof a demand notice amounting to Rs.39,250 was issued vide Division Manager WAPDA, Daska Memo. No. 11297 dated 3‑12‑1994, but the consumer/applicant did not deposit the amount of demand notice within the prescribed period, therefore, his case was cancelled due to non‑payment of the said amount. Subsequently, the appellant surreptitiously and dishonestly with ulterior motive provided single phase connection to consumer Yawar Saeed Cheema under Tariff 04‑A as a commercial connection by violating the departmental rules and regulations. It is borne out from the available material that the competent authority summoned the appellant with record of the consumer's case, but he deliberately did not produce the relevant record to the Division Manager WAPDA. The WAPDA authorities after verifying the entire available record found that, the appellant, in violation of the rules provided for electricity connection, and caused heavy financial loss to the respondents as mentioned hereinabove. It is very strange to note that the appellant in his reply to show‑cause notice admitted that in, the application made by Yawar Saeed Cheema for commercial connection kind of load to shop i.e. Poultry farm was not mentioned and it was the duty of the Supervisor (Connection) to have brought the same to the notice of the appellant; whereas according to his own version the appellant sanctioned the connection in routine manner. It is evident from the WAPDA Rules that the competent authority can impose one or more penalties. In this respect we reproduce here rule 4 (1)(a) of the Rules, which reads as under:‑

"(a) Minor Penalties:

(i) censure;

(ii) withholding of a specified period, promotion or increment, otherwise than for unfitness for promotion or financial advancement in accordance with the rules or orders pertaining to the service or post.

(iii) stoppage, for a specified period, at an efficiency bar in the time scale, otherwise than for unfitness to cross such bar;

(iv) recovery from pay of the whose or any part of any pecuniary loss caused to WAPDA by negligence or breach of orders."

In view of the material so available and mentioned hereinabove, the action of the appellant for sanction of electricity connection for commercial purpose was not within his power and with ulterior motives he sanctioned the same. On the contrary in his reply he has thrown away the responsibility on the shoulders of the Supervisor (Connection) by stating that he did not bring the same to his knowledge; whereas in routine and casual manner he sanctioned the same. The explanation given by the appellant in any case appears to be mala fide on his part and is not acceptable. According to WAPDA Rules, the penalty so imposed on the appellant is legal one and within the domain of the competent Authority. In our considered opinion, the WAPDA Authorities have already shown leniency to the appellant and further leniency, in any case, is not fair.

6. The impugned judgment is well‑reasoned, wherein proper appreciation of the material available has already been done, and the same is not open to exception. Furthermore, a substantial question of law of public importance, as envisaged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, is not involved in this case.

7. For the facts, circumstances ,and reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑659/S Appeal dismissed.