Khawaja ABDUL KHALIQ vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a Line-Superintendent against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld his departmental reversion for unauthorizedly granting an electricity connection. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner acted under the verbal orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, presenting a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner admitted to giving the connection without permission from the competent authority, and the Sub-Divisional Officer did not support the petitioner's assertion of having received verbal orders. Furthermore, the contention raised no substantial question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the disciplinary action and the Tribunal's decision.
- Does a defense of acting under verbal orders of a superior officer raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent factual findings of departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal regarding unauthorized acts?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was a Line-Superintendent under the respondent-Authority and was at the relevant time posted in Bhera Sub-Division. There were allegations against him that he had given electricity connection in a village without authority. He was served with a charge- sheet and called upon to furnish his explanation. The petitioner submitted his written statement which was not found satisfactory by the Department. By way of disciplinary action a direction was given that he should revert to the lower post of Line-Superintendent-II for a period of three years.
He filed a representation against the penalty imposed upon him but without any success. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed before us that the petitioner had given electricity connection to the village without permission of the competent authority. His case however is that he had done so under the verbal orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It may be mentioned that the Sub-Divisional Officer was also proceeded against departmentally but was found innocent.
3. The sole question before us is if in giving electricity connection to the village the petitioner had acted under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was one of fact. Apparently, the Sub- Divisional Officer has not supported the petitioner's assertion. However, that may be, the contention of the petitioner before us does not raise any substantial question of law of public importance.
Leave is refused.