AMJAD FAIZ vs THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the removal of the petitioner, a Director (Accounts) at the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner had been removed from service following allegations of misconduct, specifically related to negligence in handling departmental accounts and failure to maintain proper control over budgetary provisions. The Federal Service Tribunal had partially allowed the petitioner's appeal, setting aside the removal order and substituting it with an order of retirement. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the Tribunal's findings and the petitioner's arguments. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable, noting that the petitioner's admitted negligence in financial and budgetary oversight justified the disciplinary action taken. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision to retire the petitioner rather than remove him from service.
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute an order of removal from service with an order of retirement?
- Does negligence in handling departmental accounts and budgetary control constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action under the WAPDA Act?
- Is the finding of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding departmental negligence subject to interference by the Supreme Court if it is found to be unexceptionable?
- Section 17(1-A), Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 8-1-1986.
2. The petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Director (Accounts) under the WAPDA. Certain allegations were levelled against him and he was required to explain his conduct. His reply was considered by the Committee constituted to probe into the affairs and ultimately his removal from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act was ordered. His appeal before the Tribunal partly succeeded to the extent that the order of his removal was set aside and instead he was retired from service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the order of the Tribunal. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the finding of the Tribunal we are of the view that the same is unexceptionable in that the petitioner was admittedly negligent in handling the accounts of the Department and that he also failed to have proper control over the budgetary provisions of the Dapartment.
4. Thus finding no force in the petition, the same is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.