WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and 3 others vs SHAN
The respondent, an Assistant Line Man employed by WAPDA, applied for extraordinary leave without pay which was refused by the competent authority. Due to his continued absence and inability to serve notice personally, a notice was published in the official gazette. Acting under Rule 8(b) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978, the competent authority dismissed him from service without a formal show-cause notice under Rule 5, deeming personal service impracticable. After his departmental appeal failed, the respondent approached the Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the appeal and substituted the dismissal with a reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale for two years. WAPDA petitioned for leave to appeal, arguing that once the merits were not pressed before the Tribunal, reduction of penalty was unjustified, and that Rule 5(a) applies differently. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in substituting an order of dismissal with a lesser penalty when the appeal was not pressed on merits?
- Whether Rule 5(a) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 applies to an inefficient worker or habitual malingerer in cases of unauthorized absence?
- Under what circumstances can a 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 pdblished 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 malingerer.
3. We grant leave to examine the above contentions.