WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD AZHAR
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 9-7-1984, whereby the respondent's removal from service as an Executive Engineer in WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, was set aside and he was reinstated. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain appeals against removal orders in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Service Tribunal possesses the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, as previously settled in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18). Furthermore, on merits, the appellant failed to produce any documents or material before the Tribunal or the Supreme Court to justify the respondent's removal. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction in such service matters despite statutory ouster clauses, and failure by the employer to substantiate allegations or produce records justifies the setting aside of the removal order.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders of WAPDA in respect of persons employed under it in view of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Is the Service Tribunal justified in accepting an appeal against removal from service when the employer fails to produce required documents or material for examination?
- 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, Islamabad, dated 9-7-1984.
2. The facts are that Muhammad Azhar respondent was working as an Executive Engineer in WAPDA since February 1971. He was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, by order dated 17-4-1982. He filed an appeal against the order of his removal from service before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which, by its order dated 9-7-1984, accepted the same and ordered his reinstatement without prejudice to the departmental proceedings already pending against him.
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 Service 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 record of the case. As for the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it has been held by this Court in WAPDA v.
Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18 that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter. As for the merits, the appellant had failed to produce the documents required by the Service Tribunal for its examination in spite of the time allowed to it, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the appeal. The same was the position of the appellant here before us. No document whatsoever was produced for us to examine whether any material existed against the respondent for his removal from service.
5. Thus finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.