WAPDA Through Its Chairman And Another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the liability and quantum of recovery imposed on a WAPDA employee found guilty of misconduct involving the collection of lesser amounts on electricity bills, when the principal offender was exonerated by the department. The Supreme Court held that where the department chose to exonerate the principal person involved in the embezzlement, the Service Tribunal took a fair and proper view in treating the amount already recovered from his subordinate assistant as sufficient punishment and waiving the rest. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary penalties and recovery orders must remain equitable and consistent when comparing the culpability of subordinates acting under instructions relative to principal offenders who have been let off by the employer.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of a penalty by the Service Tribunal when the principal offender has been exonerated by the department?
- Can a subordinate employee acting under the instructions of a senior be subjected to the full recovery of an embezzled amount while the primary culprit is let off?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.---This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article .212 of the Constitution directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 17-11-1992.
The facts briefly stated are that the respondent is an employee of WAPDA. Proceedings for misconduct were taken against him on the ground that while collecting electricity bills he was charging lesser amounts than what was actually due. In this connection he was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.47,625.10 being the amount not recovered because of charging the consumer lesser amount than what was due.
2. The Service Tribunal found that two other persons too were involved in this illgal business namely the S.D.O. Incharge (Mr Ayub) and the Senior LS-I (Zulfiqar), while the respondent was only the Assistant to Zulfiqar LS-I aforesaid. It was also found that Zulfiqar LS-I was the person who was really the villain of the piece but had been surprisingly let off by WAPDA. In these --circumstances the Tribunal took a lenient view of the misconduct of the respondent, observing that he was only complying with the instructions of his senior LS-I (Zulfiqar) and the said person had been let off by WAPDA. In these circumstances the Tribunal considered that the amounts which had already been recovered from the respondent should be regarded as sufficient punishment for his part in the negligence/misconduct committed by the WAPDA officials. The rest of the amount which was yet to be recovered from the. Respondent was ordered to be waived. WAPDA was furthermore directed to stop the recovery of any further amount from the respondent forthwith.
3. Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record in support of this petition submitted that out of the sum of Rs.47,625.10 which was to be recovered from the respondent only a small fraction namely Rs.4,000 has so far been recovered and since the charge against the respondent was very serious, the order of the; Tribunal requires interference..
4. We however feel that after the department thought it fit to exonerate the principal person involved in this embezzlement namely Zufiqar LS-I, the, view taken by the Tribunal that his Assistant who was merely carrying out his order and may not be burdened with the entire embezzled amount was a fair and proper view and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference.
5. The result is that we do not consider this case to be a fit one for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.