WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another vs MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a judgment of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had modified the respondent's penalty from dismissal from service to removal from service, following the respondent's misconduct involving the incorrect recording of consumer meter readings on twenty occasions. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to provide sufficient reasons for substituting the penalty, asserting that the original dismissal was competently awarded. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Service Tribunal's appellate powers, referencing established precedents regarding the amplitude of such authority. The Court held that the Service Tribunal acted within its competent power when modifying the penalty. Consequently, the Court determined that the impugned order did not raise a question of law of public importance sufficient to justify granting leave to appeal under the Constitution. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the Tribunal's discretion in matters of service penalties.
- Does the modification of a service penalty by a Service Tribunal raise a question of law of public importance justifying leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Does a Service Tribunal possess the authority to substitute a penalty of dismissal with removal from service?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--WAPDA seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 5-11-1988 whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was substituted by the Tribunal by removal from service.
2. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the misconduct attributed to the respondent was fully established inasmuch as, on twenty occasions, he had wrongly recorded the meter-reading of the consumers. Taking strong exception to his conduct, the competent authority had passed an order of his dismissal from service. On an appeal by the respondent, the Tribunal not finding any fault with the finding of the competent authority on the question of misconduct, substituted the penalty of dismissal without giving any reason whatsoever. The only observation made by the Tribunal in this respect is as follows:-- "As regards penalty, we are of the view that in peculiar circumstances of the case, the order of dismissal from service deserves to be converted into that of removal from service and we order accordingly. With this modification the appeal is rejected."
This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is not a sufficient ground for interfering with punishment competently awarded.
3. A power possessed by the Tribunal has been exercised by it. In the case of M. Yamin Qureshi v.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another PLD 1980 SC 22 and SA. Rizvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another PLD 1980 SC 40, the amptitude of the powers of the Service Tribunal as an appellate authority has been dealt with. As the impugned order of the Tribunal has been competently passed, it raises no such question of law of public importance as may justify an appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Hence leave to appeal is refused.
' Leave to .