WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J..These service appeals through leave of the Court the leave grant order reads as follows: "Leave to appeal has been sought by the WAPDA, against the acceptance of the service appeals of the two respondents in these two petitions, by the Federal Service Tribunal; whereby their removal from service was held illegal and has been set aside".

2. ' Learned counsel stated that the respondents were exonerated by the Executive Engineer at the initial stage. However, in exercise of suo motu powers under Clause 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, the WAPDA "Authority" examined their cases, set aside the orders of exoneration and passed instead orders of removal.

3. ' The Tribunal while accepting the respondents' appeals made the following observations: "Surprisingly, reasons for reversing the order of the Superintending Engineer exonerating the appellant were not recorded for imposing the penalty of removal from service. Rule 12 of the WAPDA E & D Rules, 1978 does give power to the Authority to revise an order passed by the subordinate authority but it does not confer arbitrary power on the Authority to revise or reverse an order of the subordinate authority without mentioning the reasons. The impugned order does not indicate whether the report of the inquiry officer was considered while reversing the order of the Superintending Engineer. We are of the opinion that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and cannot be maintained."

4. ' Learned counsel tried to show that the entire file relating to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the "Authority" was before the Tribunal. It contained the noting and recording of opinions and decision by the "Authority" from time to time. Accordingly the short office orders reproduced in the impugned judgment, should not have been read in isolation of what the file contained. If they would have been read with the Office orders, the decision of the Tribunal would have been different.

5. After hearing the learned counsel in support of his contention we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine; whether, in case the observations made by the Tribunal are upheld in the context that the "Authority" committed a technical error in not repeating the material contained in the files in the orders themselves, would it not have been necessary or at least proper for the Tribunal to remand the case to the "Authority" for fresh decision and/or rewriting of proper judgment. Order accordingly."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same point which , was noted for examination in the above-reproduced order. In addition the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the learned Members of the Tribunal also fell into same error which they had purportedly detected in the order of the appellant; namely, that the case was not discussed as an appellate forum could and should have done nor any reasons were given for not upholding the decision of the appellant on the material which was before the Tribunal in the form of departmental files and documents and/or by summoning further record from the appellant. Learned counsel brought to our notice that the charges against the two respondents who are brothers inter se are much more serious than what the Tribunal thought. If the records would have been perused the result of the appeals before the Tribunal might have been different.

7. ' Learned counsel for the respondents while trying to show that enough material has not been placed on the files of this Court from which the nature of the charge and material in support thereof could be discovered nevertheless could not dispute the proposition that the Tribunal could have remanded the case for writing of a better and detailed order and/or for rehearing of the matter and fresh decision. This Court had not required the appellant to produce the entire evidence and material against the respondents in this Court. One reason could be that no indication was given in the leave grant order that this Court would for the first time itself in this case decide factual controversy on merits as the Tribunal and the appellant did not examine the merits in detail. The need for fresh decision and detailed order by the appellant not having been seriously disputed, we in the light of the foregoing discussion allow these appeals, while setting aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Authority for decision afresh. The respondents shall be afforded opportunity to appear, produce evidence and make statements as well as submit oral and written arguments, if need be.