WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Not Found
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had partially allowed the respondent's appeal against his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, converting the penalty of removal into compulsory retirement. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and whether it possessed the legal authority to substitute the penalty of removal with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in condoning the delay, a matter generally not re-examined by the Supreme Court. Regarding the substitution of the penalty, the Court affirmed that as an appellate forum, the Tribunal is empowered to examine the material supporting the Authority's order and, in suitable cases, substitute the penalty with one it deems more appropriate. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the Tribunal's authority to modify disciplinary penalties imposed under the WAPDA Act.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to substitute a penalty of removal with compulsory retirement for a WAPDA employee?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal condone a delay in filing an appeal against a service-related order?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal limited to merely reviewing the validity of an order, or can it substitute the penalty imposed by the Authority?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J: --This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment dated 31-1-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in Appeal No.1(Q) of 1984, filed by the respondent, who was acting as the Line Superintendent-I at the relevant time against the order of his removal from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, allowing the same partly by converting the order of removal into compulsory retirement. The WAPDA has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to decide the question of limitation in accordance with law and secondly, his submission was that the Tribunal could not have substituted the order of removal by the order of compulsory retirement.
3. Before dealing with the above contentions, we may observe that this is third round of litigation as the matter had come up before this Court twice earlier. Be that as it may, the above first contention as to the question of limitation is not tenable. Admittedly, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone the delay, which it did. Generally this Court does not examine the question of condonation of delay.
3-A. As regards the above second submission, it may be observed that the Tribunal has relied upon the case of WAPDA v. Abdul Sattar and 2 others (1990 SCM R 934) and the case of Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. Water and Power Development Authority and another (1992 SCM R 774).
In the above first case, somewhat similar argument was urged but the .Same was repelled as under:-- "(2)In support of this petition it is urged that after the Tribunal had found that the Authority had sufficient reasons to take action against the respondents under section 1,7(1-A) it was not open to it to interfere with the orders made by the Authority. It is difficult to accept this contention. As an appellate forum the learned Tribunal could not only examine whether the order made by the Authority was supported by material but in suitable cases it could substitute the order of the Authority with one which it deemed to be more appropriate. Leave is refused in all these petitions."
In the above second case, the above view was reiterated as follows: "However, in the present case as observed hereinabove, it was not even alleged before the Tribunal that the impugned action was mala fide or suffers from any of the above infirmities. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the case and has substituted retirement in place of removal as under above,; subsection (1-A) of section17 an employee of WAPDA can either be removed or be retired."
4. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has no case for the grant of I B leave. Leave is, accordingly, refused.