WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 3 others vs SHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Service Tribunal. The respondent, an Assistant Line Man, remained absent from duty after his application for extraordinary leave without pay was refused. Following an unserved notice published in a newspaper, the competent authority dismissed him from service under Rule 8(b) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978, dispensing with the show-cause notice. The Service Tribunal partly accepted the respondent's appeal by substituting the dismissal with a penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale for two years. WAPDA sought leave to appeal, contending that reduction in penalty was unjustified when the appeal was not pressed on merits, and that Rule 5(a) of the said Rules did not apply to the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in reducing a penalty of dismissal to reduction in time scale when an appeal is not pressed on merits?
- Whether Rule 5(a) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 applies to an employee who remains absent rather than an inefficient worker or habitual malingerer?
- Under what circumstances can the competent authority dispense with a show-cause notice under Rule 8(b) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Rule 8(b), WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978
- Rule 5, WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978
- Rule 5(a), WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Respondent Shan Elahi was working as Assistant Line Man, when he made an application for two years leave extraordinary without pay, which was not allowed by the competent authority. He remained absent and since notice could not be served on him, it was published in WAPDA Khabarnama dated 20-4-1989. Competent authority acting under Rule 8(b) of WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 passed order of dismissal from service, being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to serve show-cause notice upon respondent as contemplated under Rule' 5 of the said Rules. After failing in departmental appeal, respondent had filed appeal before the Service Tribunal, which is accepted in part to the extent that order of dismissal is substituted by order of reduction to the lowest stage in time scale for a period of two years.
2. WAPDA as petitioners seek leave to appeal on the grounds that since appeal before the Tribunal was not pressed on merits, reduction in the penalty to the extent mentioned above, is not justified and in another case with similar facts, leave has been granted by this Court (C.P.S.LA. No, 801-L of 1990) on 25-11-1990, which appeal is pending. Secondly that Rule 5(a) of the said Rules is not attracted in the instant case for the reason that it applies to an inefficient worker or habitual malignerer.
3. We grant leave to examine the above contentions.