AFTAB AHMAD vs THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had converted the petitioner's dismissal from service into removal from service. The petitioner, a Lineman of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was dismissed following a fatal accident of an Assistant Lineman under his supervision, which was attributed to the petitioner's gross negligence. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which declined jurisdiction, and subsequently appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing, examined the merits, and dismissed the appeal while modifying the penalty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, as the petitioner had refused to receive the show-cause notice despite repeated efforts. The Court affirmed that the fatal accident resulted from the petitioner's lack of sense of duty and declined to grant leave to appeal, finding no merit to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.
- Whether disciplinary proceedings are valid if a public servant refuses to receive a show-cause notice despite repeated efforts?
- Can a civil servant seek relief from a Labour Court if the court lacks jurisdiction over the service matter?
- Whether gross negligence resulting in a fatal accident of a subordinate justifies the termination of a supervisor's services?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Aftab Ahmad, an Ex-Lineman of WAPDA (E), Sargodha, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 30-10-1984.
2. ' While serving as Lineman in Shahpur Sub-Division, Sargodha Circle of WAPDA, he was dismissed from service by an order, dated 20-4-1982 of the Superintending Engineer, WAPDA, Sargodha. The charge was of gross negligence which resulted in fatal accident of Muhammad Akram, Assistant Lineman. The aforesaid Assistant Lineman climbed upon an electric pole on which the transmission line was energised. This was contrary to the instructions. It was the duty of the petitioner to take care of him. He failed to do so.
3. ' Against his dismissal, his departmental appeal failed. Then he served a grievance notice. As he did not hear anything, he moved an application before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Labour Court declined to entertain the application on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner then came before the Tribunal.
4. ' The first question before the Tribunal was that of limitation as the appeal was barred by time. The Tribunal condoned the delay, examined the merits of the case and ultimately dismissed his appeal.
5. ' We have heared the learned counsel for the petitioner who tried to argue that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to plead his case. This is not correct because we find from the order of the Tribunal that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15-12-1981 which in spite of repeated efforts, the petitioner refused to receive. In such circumstances, the matter could not be adjourned sine die and the only course opened to the Superintending Engineer was to dismiss the petitioner from service. The proceedings conducted against the petitioner were in accordance with rules and law. It is established that the Assistant Lineman died because of lack of sense of duty on the part of the petitioner.
6. ' In spite of all this the Tribunal took a lenient view and coverted his dismissal from service into removal from service.
7. ' The petitioner is lucky that way and he should be contented with that. Not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Dismissed.