ABDUL SATTAR, Ex Budget And Accounts Officer, Banking, WAPDA vs FEDERAL
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter wherein the petitioner, an Accounts Clerk promoted to Budget and Accounts Officer in WAPDA, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act following departmental inquiries. He was subsequently convicted by a Summary Military Court but granted a pardon and reinstatement order by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator. Upon WAPDA's refusal to reinstate him, the Federal Service Tribunal allowed his initial appeal. However, WAPDA subsequently issued a fresh dismissal order under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, which the Federal Service Tribunal upheld upon a second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether an employee who has been granted a pardon and reinstated by martial law authorities, and whose appeal was allowed by the Service Tribunal, can be validly dismissed again under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on the same grounds. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioner warranted consideration and granted leave to appeal.
- Whether an employee granted pardon and reinstatement after conviction can be afresh dismissed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on identical grounds?
- Whether WAPDA has the power to issue a fresh dismissal order under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act after the Federal Service Tribunal has already accepted an employee's appeal against a previous removal?
- Section 17(1-A), West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Abdul Sattar petitioner was initially employed as Accounts Clerk in the WAPDA Department w.e.f. 17-1-1962 and after passing departmental examination he was promoted as Budget and Accounts Officer on 26-4-1979. He was posted in the Office of the Director of Accounts, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Multan as incharge of Banking Impresent Section. The petitioner allegedly failed to exercise proper check while pre-auditing contractors book and departmental inquiries were initiated against him. In two inquiries he was exonerated of the charges, levelled against him but on the 3rd inquiry he was held responsible for the act of fraud etc. And was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on 21-7-1982. Besides the removal action against the petitioner, the Deputy Director (Confidential) also recommended initiation of criminal proceedings on the same charges and accordingly the Chairman Area Electricity Board WAPDA Multan, registered cases against the petitioner and ultimately, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Summary Military Court Multan for trial. As a result of the trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. With fine of Rs.1,00,000 vide order dated 19- 12-1983.
2. The petitioner filed appeal against this order before the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector No.3, Multan who vide his order dated 30-9-1984 granted pardon to the petitioner and also issued direction for his reinstatement in the service. The petitioner in consequence of the said order reported for his duties to the General Manager (Finance) WAPDA, Lahore but he refused to reinstate him so he then preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted vide order dated 5-7-1986. In the light of the order of the Tribunal the petitioner reported for duty on 20- 7-1986 but the WAPDA did not take him on duty and passed a fresh order of his dismissal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on 26-8-1986. Against this order the petitioner filed an other appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad which was rejected vide impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the relevant portion of the record and findings of the learned Federal Service Tribunal. The learned counsel pointed out that in identical cases of similar facts, the Service Tribunal has allowed the appeal. He relied on the reported cases titled "Muhammad Idrees v. The Chief Director, Central Directorate of National Savings and another" (1988 PLC 1) and "Muhammad Hussain v. Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, Rawalpindi" (1989 PLC 175).
4. After hearing the learned counsel in the light of the above-noted cases, in support of this petition, we are of the view, that the contention raised by him needs consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. Appeal shall be made ready on the present record with permission to parties to file additional documents, if they so desire.