ABDUL HAMID vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another
This appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the removal of the appellant, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), from service. The appellant had a history of disciplinary actions, including multiple charge-sheets and punishments, before being removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to interfere with WAPDA's orders regarding its employees, given the ouster of jurisdiction clause under Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Relying on the precedent established in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), the Court affirmed that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the appellant's service record, noting numerous allegations and prior disciplinary actions, and concluded that the removal under Section 17(1-A) was fully justified. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's removal from service.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA regarding its employees in light of Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Is the removal of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, subject to judicial review by the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
- Section 17(1-C), WAPDA Act 1958
ALI HUSSAN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 29-5-1984.
2. Abdul Hamid appellant was employed in WAPDA in 1965 in the capacity of cashier and was posted as a meter-reader at Burewala Sub-Division. He worked as such in various stations and was then transferred to District Vehari on 15-6-1978. In 1977 he was proceeded against for misconduct and was charge-sheeted but ultimately reinstated on 15-6-1978 with a punishment of withholding his two increments and the right to claim his salary during the period he remained under suspension was also forfeited. After two years he was again served with a show-cause notice and ultimately dismissed vide order dated 29-6-1980. This order was, however, set aside by the N.I.R.C.
However, on 28-7-1982 the appellant was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The appellant challenged his removal from service by way of an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed through the impugned order.
3. Leave was granted in this case to consider whether in view of the complete ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, the Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with orders of WAPDA in respect of its employees. This question stands resolved by this Court in its judgment reported as WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18.
4. So far as the removal of the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal after going through the record of the appellant came to the conclusion that his record was full of allegations against him; there were four charge-sheets and two punishments awarded to the appellant and thus held that his removal from service under section 17(1-A). Of the WAPDA Act was fully justified.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we find that enough material is available against the appellant. Thus, the order of his removal from service does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.