TARIQ MAHMOOD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Chairman
This matter involves two petitions directed against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissal, modified to removal from service, of a Line Superintendent in WAPDA. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal failed to consider material documentary evidence on record, specifically a report by the Executive Engineer supporting the employee's contention. The Supreme Court held that there was force in the contention that the Tribunal overlooked relevant evidence, and consequently granted leave to appeal to both parties. The key principle laid down is that overlooking or failing to read material evidence on record by an adjudicatory tribunal warrants the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal's order suffers from non-reading of evidence when material documents on record are overlooked?
- Can the competent authority enhance a penalty under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Rule 12, Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1978
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of the above-mentioned two petitions as both are directed against the same order of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. ' Tariq Mahmood (petitioner in C.P. No, 361-R of 1988) was serving as a Line Superintendent in the WAPDA Organization in year 1986 at Gujranwala. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for not installing the electricity connection in the premises of the consumer as directed. The competent authority who was Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Gujranwala, after obtaining the petitioner's explanation, imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale by two steps for two years vide order dated 6-3-1986. The petitioner did not file any appeal against this penalty and normally this should have been the end of the matter. However, the Authority acting under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 called upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty imposed by the competent authority should not he enhanced. Later on after obtaining the explanation of the petitioner, the Authority dismissed him from service vide order dated 4-5-1987. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal upheld the action of the Authority in the main; but considering the penalty imposed to be too harsh converted the same from dismissal to removal from service vide order dated 14-6-1988. By this petition (C.P.
3. No, 361-R of 1988) the petitioner seeks leave against the said order.
4. ' WAPDA too is dissatisfied with the order of the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Authority has wrongly been reduced to removal from service and has submitted Civil Petition No, 362-R of 1988 in that connection.
5. ' The plea of Tariq Mahmood (petitioner in C. P. No, 361-R of 1988' before the Service Tribunal was that he had entrusted the meter etc. To Muhammad Ilyas, Line Man-I for installing it at the premises of the consumer and the latter had informed him that the needful has been done.
6. Unfortunately relying on the report of Muhammad Ilyas, Line Man-I he did not personally go and check whether the work of installation had been carried out. The competent authority considered that the penalty of reduction to lower scale in the time scale for two years on account of his negligence in not verifying the report and seeing whether the work of installation had indeed been carried out was sufficient. But this view was apparently not shared by the Authority which ordered the dismissal of the petitioner and the Federal Service Tribunal appears to have agreed with the Authority observing that the petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence before the Authority in support of his contention that he had made over the meter for installation at the premises of the consumer.
7. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Service Tribunal has overlooked Memorandum No, 6557- 59/WM, dated 6-3-1986 wherein the Executive Engineer, Cantt. Division (E) WAPDA, Gujranwala had in his report admitted the, fact that the petitioner handed over the meter to Muhammad Ilyas, Line Man-I. Accordingly, the documentary evidence in the shape of Executive Engineer's report did exist on the record of the Authority itself which established the contention raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the order of the learned Service Tribunal suffers from non-reading of the evidence on the record.
8. ' There is some force in this contention. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.
9. Since leave has been granted in Civil Petition No, 361-R of 1988, leave to appeal is also granted in the connected matter (C.P.No, 362-R of 1988.)
10. ' Both these appeals should be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add any further documents, if any and put up for hearing together at an early date.