MAHMOOD AHMED vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-5-1984, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding his removal from service. The appellant, a Stenographer employed by WAPDA, was suspended following his arrest for accepting illegal gratification and was subsequently removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act pursuant to a general policy regarding employees facing criminal cases. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, and the merits of the removal based on appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional issue stood resolved by earlier precedent and that the Tribunal's findings on the merits, being based on proper appraisal of evidence establishing illegal gratification, warranted no interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that factual findings based on evidence by the Service Tribunal will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent legal infirmity.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed in respect of persons employed or serving under WAPDA?
- Does a finding of fact regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification arrived at by the Service Tribunal warrant interference by the Supreme Court based on appraisal of evidence?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
- Section 17(1-C), WAPDA Act 1958
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 19-5-1984.
2. The appellant was a Stenographer in the WA PDA Cantt. Division, Gujranwala, and was placed under suspension with effect from 30-7-1980 because of his arrest by the Anti-Corruption Police for accepting illegal gratification. He was, however, re-instated on 26-3-1981. The appellant was again charge-sheeted but the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 5-3-1981 recommended departmental action against the appellant. As a general policy, the WAPDA decided that persons against whom criminal cases had been registered should be removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. Thus, the appellant was removed from service vide order dated 19-1-1983.
After failing to seek redress through departmental appeal, the appellant approached the Federal Service Tribunal by way of an appeal 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, 1958, the learned Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with the orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed or serving under it.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order of the learned Tribunal. As for the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the same has since been decided by this Court in the case reported as WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR
18. As for the merits, the same have been scrutinized by the learned Service Tribunal who after inspecting the record came to the conclusion that there was convincing evidence against the appellant for the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification and thus dismissed his appeal. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the finding arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal is based on appraisal of evidence and thus does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.