AFZAL AHMAD vs WAPDA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Meter Reader for WAPDA, from service. The petitioner was removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the removal was unlawful due to the failure to issue a show-cause notice or conduct a formal inquiry prior to the termination order. The petitioner further contended that the absence of such procedural safeguards rendered the removal un-Islamic, relying on the precedent established in Pakistan v. Public-at-large. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dictum laid down in the cited precedent was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice or inquiry under the specific provisions of the WAPDA Act, thereby affirming the validity of the removal order without the requirement of prior procedural formalities.
- Does the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act require a prior show-cause notice?
- Is a formal inquiry mandatory before removing an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Does the absence of a show-cause notice in a WAPDA service termination render the action un-Islamic?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Afzal Ahmad, son of Muhammad Rafique, EL-Meter Reader, WAPDA, RA.
2. Bazar Sub-Division, Lahore Cantt. Seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 18-9-1984.
3. ' The petitioner was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act.
4. ' The solitary contention raised before us was that before he was required to leave the office vide order dated 18-7-1982, the petitioner was never served with any show-cause notice nor an enquiry was held.
5. ' It was contended that though not mentioned in so many words in the petition, this procedure was un-Islamic. In support of this reliance was placed on Pakistan v. Public-at-large PLD 1987 SC 304.
6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel. The dictum laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the present one.
7. ' We, therefore, don't find any substance in this petition for leave to appeal.
8. ' Dismissed.