KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs WAPDA through its Chairman
The petitioner, a WAPDA employee, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, by receiving 30 days' pay in lieu of notice without being provided reasons for his termination. While the petitioner was implicated in irregularities regarding tender processing, the Authority opted to invoke Section 17(1-A) rather than initiating proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, which would have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to clarify his position before an Inquiry Officer. The Service Tribunal upheld the removal, ruling that the Authority possesses absolute power under Section 17(1-A) to remove employees without assigning reasons. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that Section 17(1-A) cannot be utilized to circumvent the procedural safeguards mandated by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, particularly noting that another implicated employee had been reinstated. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively interpret the scope and import of Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, specifically regarding whether it can be used to bypass established disciplinary procedures.
- Does Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 grant the Authority absolute power to remove an employee without assigning reasons?
- Can the provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 be used to circumvent the procedure prescribed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
' MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioner, an employee of WAPDA was removed from service w,e,f, 15- 6-1977 under section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 by giving him 30 days' pay in lieu of notice but without assigning any reason. An inquiry is said to have been conducted against an Executive Engineer and S.D.O. In connection with irregularities committed by them in the opening and processing of tenders for the purchase of stores. Since the petitioner was responsible for the maintenance of Accounts and Record, connected with the stores in question, action was contemplated against him also. Instead, however, of taking action under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules against the petitioner which would have entitled him to have clarified his position before the Inquiry Officer, report was taken to the provisions of section 17 (1-A). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Authority of WAPDA under section 17 (1-A) is absolute to remove any WAPDA employee from service after giving 30 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof without assigning any reason."
2. It has also been contended that the Saleh-ud-Din, the main accused in the tenders' case who had also been removed under section 17 (1-A) has been re-instated. It is submitted that the provisions of A section 17 (1-A) cannot be used for the purpose of circumventing the procedure prescribed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Leave is granted to consider the import of section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act and to give an authoritative decision on that.