WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM
The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the appeal of a Meter Reader, Muhammad Akram. The Tribunal had quashed the respondent's removal from service but maintained an order of reversion for two years and directed that the period the respondent remained out of service be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Federal Service Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, which the petitioner contended was limited to examining issues of mala fides and coram non judice, citing precedent. The Supreme Court found that the legal point raised regarding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal exceeded its statutory authority in modifying the disciplinary orders passed against the employee. The appeal was ordered to be prepared on the existing record, with permission for parties to file additional documents within two months.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary orders beyond the scope of mala fides and coram non judice?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to a period of reversion and leave without pay?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--WAPDA has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-9-84 whereby appeal of Muhammad Akram respondent, Meter Reader, was partly accepted The Tribunal quashed the order of his removal from service but held that the order of his reversion for a period of two years shall remain in force and the period during which he remained out of service should be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the Tribunal acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction which was confined only to examine mala fides and coram non judice. In support of this he relied on the case of Sheikh Abdul Hameed and 2 others v. WAPDA (PLD 1988 SC 35).
3. ' Point raised by the learned counsel needs detailed examination. Leave is accordingly granted.
4. ' Appeal to be made ready on the present record. The parties if they so wish may file additional documents within two months.