MAHMUD AHMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Meter Reader of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner had been removed from service pursuant to Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's removal from service was tainted by mala fides, as alleged by the petitioner. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the petitioner had a history of misconduct, including being caught reversing an electric meter. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation of mala fides, finding that the Federal Service Tribunal had correctly examined the facts and found no substance in the petitioner's claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the validity of the removal action taken by the authorities under the relevant statutory provisions.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on merits despite being time-barred?
- Does the removal of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act require proof of mala fides to be set aside?
- Is the finding of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the absence of mala fides in a service termination case subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is barred by three days. There is no application for condonation of delay yet we allowed the counsel to argue on merits.
2. ' Petitioner, Meter Reader in WAPDA, was removed from service on 31-7-1982. Action was taken under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. He appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 21-8-1984. He now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment.
3. ' Wherever the petitioner was posted, he made mess of everything. On one occasion he was caught red-handed while reversing the electric meter of one of the consumers.
4. The contention of the learned counsel that the order of removal was mala tide is devoid of force.
5. The petitioner took this plea before the Tribunal who examined the same alongwith other relevant facts and found that it had no substance.
6. ' We have also looked into this aspect and we are of the view that the petitioner had not been able to establish the same.
7. ' The petitioner has no cause for leave to appeal. Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.