Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 371

Sh. ZULFIQAR ALI And Another vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 371
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.420-R and 480-R of 1989 Appeal
Date1991-02-19
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa
Authored byShafiur Rahman
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the findings of the Service Tribunal regarding the removal of employees by departmental authorities. The core legal question examined is whether an order of removal simpliciter passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1955, could be given a punitive content and colour by the Tribunal through observations characterizing the removal as a punishment for corruption charges. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the Tribunal's observations importing punitive elements into a statutory removal simpliciter, thereby settling the scope of review and characterization of removal orders under the relevant statutory framework.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an order of removal simpliciter passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1955 can be given a punitive content and colour by the Tribunal?
  • Can the Service Tribunal characterize a statutory removal from service as an appropriate punishment for corruption charges?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 17(1-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act 1955
removal simpliciterservice tribunalpunitive contentleave to appealstatutory removaldepartmental authorities

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to examine whether an order of removal simpliciter passed by departmental authorities under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1955, could be given a punitive content and colour by the Tribunal by observing as hereunder:-- C.P. No.420-R of 1989.

2. "In the case of corruption charge, the appellant's removal from service was the appropriate punishment."

3. C.P. No.480-R of 1989.

4. "He deserved the punishment of his removal from service imposed on him and there were no mitigating circumstances for awarding him lesser punishment."

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.