JAVAID AKHTAR vs WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 2
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Javaid Akhtar against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld his dismissal from service as a Line Superintendent-II in WAPDA. The petitioner was accused of accepting illegal gratification from villagers for electricity connections, misappropriating government material, and issuing incorrect receipts. Following an inquiry wherein he was found guilty, he was dismissed from service. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal order was vitiated due to personal enmity and mala fides of the punishing authority, and whether a fresh opportunity of hearing was required when the initial dismissal order was withdrawn and a fresh order was passed based on the existing record. The Supreme Court held that the allegations of mala fides were fabricated and lacked credible proof, that the inquiry findings were based on solid evidence, and that no fresh opportunity of hearing was warranted under the circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the validity of the departmental action.
- Whether an order of dismissal passed by a departmental authority can be set aside on the ground of mala fides without credible proof?
- Is a fresh opportunity of hearing required when a dismissal order is withdrawn and a fresh order is passed on the basis of material already available on record?
- Whether findings of fact returned by an Inquiry Officer based on evidence can be interfered with by the court without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
ORDER
1. RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---Javaid Akhtar, the petitioner herein was employed as Line Superintendent-II in WAPDA and was performing his duties in that capacity in the Office of Construction S/D, Narowal in the year 1992-93. The petitioner and Muhammad Safdar, Line Superintendent-I, were alleged to have accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000 from the people of village Kakey Zayan for giving them electricity connections. They also received Rs.850 per application from 41 villagers and issued receipts of Rs.100 only as meter security. Other allegations of drawing excessive material from the store by preparing bogus estimates were also levelled.
2. These charges were levelled against them on 21st and 23rd of January, 1993. Syed Muntazir Shah, Deputy Director Enquiries-II, WAPDA, Lahore conducted enquiry against he petitioner and Muhammad Safdar. On 22-7-1993, they were held guilty by the Enquiry Officer on the charges of taking illegal gratification . And misappropriation/misuse of Government material. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 26th of May, 1994 by the Project Director, (Construction) Circle, WAPDA, Gujranwala. His appeal was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on 12th of March, 1995. This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel has submitted that order of dismissal having been passed against the petitioner is based on proved enmity and mala fide. According to him, an order of dismissal was passed by Capt. Ali Zaman Project Director (Construction) Circle, WAPDA who was not competent to do so because he appeared as a witness against the petitioner. He argues that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and that being so, grave injustice had been done to him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record. There is no force in the argument inasmuch as the order dated 26-5-1994 passed by the aforesaid Capt. Ali Zaman was withdrawn by the Project Director' (Construction), Operation Circle, WAPDA, Gujranwala and, thereafter, a fresh order was passeck on the basis of material which was already available on record. No fresh opportunity of hearing was required to be given because in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner had been appearing in support of his case. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to an undated application available at page 28 of the paper book having been given by the petitioner and Muhammad Safdar against the Second Officer, who passed the impugned order to show enmity. There is no credible proof to indicate that this application was ever submitted against the abovesaid departmental authority who passed the order. The copies of the application at page 28 of the\Paper book were sent to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Director- General, F.I.A. And Chairman, WAPDA. Learned counsel was specifically asked to show the postal receipts but he conceded that he did not possess such evidence to demonstrate that the copies were sent through post to the abovementioned authorities. We, accordingly, hold that the said application was fabricated just to create evidence showing enmity between the parties. The petitioner was found guilty by the competent authority on the basis of evidence to demonstrate that he accepted illegal gratification and also misappropriated the material belonging to the Government. These findings having been given by the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence. It cannot be argued with success that the people of village Kakey Zayan had enmity or ill-will against the petitioner. It is always easy to allege mala fide but, at the ,same time, it is difficult to prove it on the basis of credible material. The impugned order is well-based in law and is, therefore, not open to any challenge. He was not able to show any mis-reading/non-reading of evidence on record.
5. There is, thus, no substance in this petition which is dismissed.