WAPDA through its Chairman and anothers vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted relief to a WAPDA employee regarding the recovery of embezzled funds. The respondent, an assistant, was charged with misconduct for collecting lesser amounts on electricity bills than were due, resulting in a liability of Rs. 47,625.10. The Tribunal found that the respondent acted under the instructions of a senior official, Zulfiqar, who was the primary actor but had been exonerated by WAPDA. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the amount already recovered from the respondent was sufficient punishment and ordered the waiver of the remaining recovery. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Tribunal's leniency was justified given the department's inconsistent treatment of the employees involved. The Court held that since the department exonerated the principal offender, it was fair and proper for the Tribunal to mitigate the liability of the assistant who merely followed orders. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the Tribunal's decision did not warrant interference.
- Can a service tribunal mitigate the punishment of an employee who acted under the instructions of a senior official who was exonerated by the department?
- Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan empowered to interfere with a finding of fact by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the quantum of punishment in a disciplinary matter?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J. ---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 illegal 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 amount 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 Zulfiqar IS-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.