MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD vs WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service by WAPDA. The petitioner was initially charge-sheeted for corruption, leading to an inquiry and an initial penalty of reduction in rank and forfeiture of certain dues. Subsequently, after the rejection of his departmental appeal by the Chairman WAPDA, the authority issued a second show-cause notice seeking to enhance the punishment, ultimately resulting in the petitioner's removal from service. The core legal question is whether an already concluded penalty, following the rejection of a departmental appeal, can be reviewed and enhanced against an employee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of enhancing a finalized punishment after the conclusion of departmental appellate proceedings.
- Whether on account of rejection of departmental appeal against the penalty imposed on an employee, the same can be reviewed or enhanced against the employee?
- WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 27-3-1989, whereby, appeal of the petitioner against the order of his removal from service by the WAPDA Department was dismissed. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 4-7-1984 alongwith two others for having received illegal gratification from the villagers of Chak No,248-GB while preparing the estimates for new connections of the said Chak and his explanation was asked to reach within 14 days after the receipt of the charge-sheet. He submitted his explanation on 22-7-1984, denying all the charges levelled against him. The competent authority being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner held an enquiry and Mr. Shaukat Ali Butt S.D.O. Was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who after recording the evidence in presence of the petitioner, submitted his report in the following words:.- "In the light of the above facts and circumstances the undersigned came to the conclusion that there is a part of accused in accepting illegal gratification."
2. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice on 16-1-1985 on the basis of this report, proposing therein to impose the penalty of dismissal from service under the WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978. On submission of the reply by the petitioner to the said show-cause notice, the competent authority vide letter dated 17-2-1985, imposed penalty of reduction to the initial stage, forfeiture of dues of suspension period other than subsistence allowance and fixation of his seniority from the date of reduction in the time scale with immediate effect. His appeal before the Chairman WAPDA, was rejected on 17-3-1986.
3. On 9-6-1987 after about 15 months from the order of the Chairman, the petitioner received another show-cause notice, stating therein that the authority was of the view that the question of adequacy or otherwise of the punishment already imposed on the petitioner needs re- examination for enhancement and ultimately, the petitioner received an order dated 1-8-1987, regarding his removal from service with immediate effect. The petitioner filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the said order which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 27-3-1989, hence this petition for leave.
4. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition, in the light of the finding of Tribunal, we are satisfied that the point for consideration involved in this petition is, whether on account of rejection of departmental appeal against the penalty imposed on the petitioner, the same can be reviewed or enhanced against the petitioner. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. Appeal may be made ready on the present record with permission to parties to file additional documents, if they want.