WAPDA Through Chairman vs MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter involving the removal of a Lineman from the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The respondent was removed from service on January 12, 1983, pursuant to an order issued under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. The respondent challenged this removal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the appeal, substituting the order of removal with an order of retirement based on the respondent's length of service. The petitioner, WAPDA, sought leave to appeal, arguing that the Tribunal's own findings regarding the respondent's unsuitable service record rendered the substitution of the penalty with retirement legally improper. The Supreme Court examined the contention that the Tribunal erred in mitigating the penalty despite acknowledging the respondent's unsuitability for retention. Finding that the petitioner's argument raised a substantial question requiring deeper judicial scrutiny, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal's substitution of the penalty was legally sustainable given the established service record.
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute an order of removal from service with an order of retirement when the employee's service record indicates unsuitability for retention?
- Does an order of removal passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 preclude the Service Tribunal from modifying the penalty?
- Section 17(1-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondent was a Lineman serving under the petitioner. On 12-1-1983, by an order made under section 17(1-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act, he was removed from service. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal to challenge the order of his removal. The learned Tribunal partly accepted the appeal and substituted the order of removal with one of retirement on account of his long service. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Tribunal.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that according to the finding of the learned Tribunal itself, the record of the respondent was such that it made him an entirely unsuitable person to be retained in service. In the circumstances, it could not have substituted the order of removal from service with that of retirement. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security far costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.