MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Meter Reader, from service with the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner had been dismissed following allegations of furnishing bogus meter readings. The core legal question was whether the failure to conduct a regular inquiry, as mandated by the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, vitiated the dismissal order. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was lawful because the petitioner had explicitly admitted to the incorrectness of the meter readings in his reply to the show-cause notice. The Court established the principle that where an employee admits to the misconduct charged in response to a show-cause notice, the necessity for a formal, regular inquiry is dispensed with, as the facts are no longer in dispute. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
- Is a formal regular inquiry mandatory under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, when the employee has admitted to the misconduct in response to a show-cause notice?
- Does an admission of guilt in a reply to a show-cause notice dispense with the requirement for a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings?
- WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J: --Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 21-11-1989 passed by the Federal, Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal' declining the petitioner's appeal against the order of his dismissal dated 16-2-1986.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was working as a Meter Reader. It was discovered that he had furnished certain bogus meter readings and therefore he was charge-sheeted. After that he was issued a show-cause notice dated 9-12-1984 and a final show-cause notice dated 22-12-1985 and, thereafter, he was dismissed by the above order dated 16-2-1986. The petitioner had, therefore, filed the aforesaid appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. Ejaz Anwar learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has repeated his argument which was advanced by the petitioner before the Tribunal, namely, no regular inquiry as required under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the `Rules' was held. The above contention has been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal. However, we may point out that the factum that the readings furnished by the petitioner to the department were not correct, had even been admitted by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice. In this view of the matter, no regular inquiry was warranted. The petition has no merits. Leave is accordingly refused.