Khawaja ABDUL KHALIQ vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The petitioner, a Line-Superintendent employed by the Water and Power Development Authority, was subjected to disciplinary action and reverted to a lower post for three years after being found guilty of unauthorizedly granting an electricity connection to a village. His departmental representation and subsequent appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal were both dismissed. In his petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not dispute granting the connection without formal permission, but contended he acted under the verbal orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was exonerated in separate departmental proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner acted under the valid orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was determined to be a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, finalizing the penalty imposed.
- Does a claim of acting under verbal orders of a superior officer raise a substantial question of law of public importance in service matters?
- Whether a factual determination by service tribunals regarding departmental misconduct warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can an employee escape disciplinary liability for an unauthorized act by asserting verbal instructions that are denied by the superior officer?
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-11 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.