WAPDA vs ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others MUHAMMAD IQBAL BUTT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondents, employees of the Authority, had their services terminated under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. While the Tribunal acknowledged that sufficient material existed to justify the Authority's action against the respondents, it exercised its appellate discretion to substitute the orders of removal with orders of retirement, citing the respondents' length of service. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, having found the Authority's action justified, possessed the power to interfere with or modify the penalty imposed. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, acting as an appellate forum, is not limited to merely reviewing the sufficiency of material supporting an order. It affirmed that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to substitute an order of the Authority with one it deems more appropriate in suitable cases. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the Tribunal's authority to modify administrative penalties.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to substitute an order of removal with an order of retirement if it finds the Authority's action was supported by material?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal limited to only reviewing whether an administrative order was supported by material, or can it modify the penalty?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal interfere with the orders made by the Water and Power Development Authority under Section 17(1-A)?
- Section 17(1-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondents were employees of the petitioner Authority. Their services were terminated under section 17(I-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act. They preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that there was material evidence on the records of the respondents to justify action under section 17(I-A) against them.
However, taking into account the length of periods that they had spent in the service of the Authority it substituted the orders of removal with the orders of retirement. The Authority now seeks leave to appeal from the judgments of the Tribunal.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that after the Tribunal had found that the Authority had sufficient reasons to take action against the respondents under section 17(I-A) it was not open to it to interfere with the orders made by the Authority. It is difficult to accept this contention. As an appellate forum the learned Tribunal could not only examine whether the order made by the Authority was supported by material but in suitable cases it could substitute the order of the Authority with one which it deemed to be more appropriate. Leave is refused in all these petitions.
Cited by 1 case
- WATERANDPOWERDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Versus FIDAMUHAMMADKHAN 1996 PLC(CS) 700