WAPDA vs SAEED BADAR
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, which had reinstated a respondent dismissed from service for willful absence. The respondent, an Information Officer, failed to report for duty after his leave expired in March 1981 and was subsequently dismissed in July 1981. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal primarily because the charge-sheet was sent for press publication after the dismissal order had already been issued. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the dismissal solely on the timing of the press publication of the charge-sheet, despite evidence that the Authority had previously attempted to serve the charge-sheet directly to the respondent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Authority's contentions required examination, particularly regarding whether the law mandates that a charge-sheet only becomes effective upon newspaper publication. The Court's decision highlights that procedural requirements for service must be assessed against actual attempts to notify the employee.
- Does a charge-sheet for dismissal from service only become effective upon its publication in a newspaper?
- Can an order of dismissal be set aside solely on the ground that the charge-sheet was published in the press after the dismissal order was issued?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondent was serving as Information Officer in the Water and Power Development Authority. He applied for three months leave in December, 1980. It expired on 28-3- 1981. Nevertheless, he did not report back on duty with the result that he was charge-sheeted for willful absence with effect from 29-3-1981 and was dismissed from service by an order dated 25-7- 1981. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. It was accepted solely on the ground that the charge-sheet was sent for publication in the press on 27-7-1981 whereas the order of dismissal was made on 25-7-1981. The Authority seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Tribunal.
2. 1n support of this petition it is contended that before the order of dismissal was passed, many efforts were made to serve the charge-sheet upon the respondent but without any success. One was even sent by registered post, acknowledgement due, on the address supplied by the respondent himself to the office. This was received by one Abdul Majid on his behalf. The respondent did not care to attend the office after the expiry of his leave and before the order of dismissal was passed. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of dismissal solely on the ground that the charge-sheet was sent to the press after the order of dismissal had been made. In any case there was no requirement of law that the charge-sheet would become effective only when it had been published in a newspaper.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the Authority needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within 3 months.