BASHIR AHMAD TAHIR vs WAPDA through its Chairman
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Bashir Ahmad Tahir against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, a Line Superintendent in WAPDA, was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 by an order dated July 31, 1982. The core legal question was whether the establishment of a formal charge of misconduct or inefficiency is a prerequisite for taking action under section 17(1-A), or whether disciplinary proceedings are mandatory. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that establishment of a charge is not necessary for passing an order under section 17(1-A), and if the competent authority is of the opinion for good reasons that the continuance of an employee in service is undesirable, such an order is legally justified. The key principle laid down is that section 17(1-A) operates independently of formal disciplinary proceedings, and the Authority may terminate service without proving specific misconduct if the employee's continuation is deemed undesirable.
- Whether the establishment of a charge is necessary for passing an order under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958?
- Can disciplinary action be mandated instead of termination under section 17(1-A) when an employee is alleged to have committed misconduct?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal order upholding removal under section 17(1-A) in the absence of an error of law?
- Section 17(1-A), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--This petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was restored to its original number. We allowed the learned counsel to address us on merits.
2. ' The petitioner was a Line Superintendent in WAPDA. He was removed from service under section 17(1-A) by order, dated 31-7-1982 passed by the Deputy Director (Confidential), WAPDA. He went before the Federal Service Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed on 16-10-1984.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his removal under section 17(1-A) was illegal because he was never found to be guilty of misconduct or inefficiency. According to the learned counsel, if at all there was any such thing then at the most disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner and not one under section 17(1-A).
4. ' We do not agree with the learned counsel. On the other hand, we think that the Tribunal was justified in observing that "for an order under section 17(1-A) the establishment of the charge is not necessary. If in the opinion of the Authority for good reasons, the continuance of a person in the service is not desirable, then an order under section 17(1-A) is well justified."
5. The Tribunal rightly made the aforesaid observatiors. In the absence of any error of law or otherwise which would justify our interference in the impugned order, leave is refused.
6. ' Dismissed.