HAMEED AHMAD TARAR vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a former employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) who had been serving as a Line Superintendent. The petitioner was removed from service by the Authority pursuant to its powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Federal Service Tribunal had examined the petitioner's record along with the material presented by the Authority, arriving at a finding of fact that sufficient basis existed for the Authority to take action under Section 17(1-A). The Court held that the petitioner sought to challenge a pure finding of fact, which did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether a challenge to a finding of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal raises a substantial question of law for granting leave to appeal?
- Whether leave to appeal will be granted by the Supreme Court where the removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is supported by sufficient factual material?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding regarding the existence of sufficient basis for removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act in the absence of a substantial question of law?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority and was serving as Line Superintendent in the Hafizabad Sub-Division. By an order dated 12-1-1983 the Authority removed him from service in exercise of its power under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After examining the petitioner's record and the material placed before it by the Authority, the learned Tribunal found that there was sufficient basis with the Authority to take action against the petitioner under section 17(1-A), ibid. It is a finding of fact and the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to challenge it before us. As the contention raised by the learned counsel does not involve any substantial question of law, leave is refused.