MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The petitioner, a Budget and Accounts Officer at the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged his removal from service following allegations of fraudulent over-payments. An internal enquiry found him responsible, leading to action under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. After his departmental representation failed, the Federal Service Tribunal rejected his appeal on merits but reduced the penalty to compulsory retirement. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that a regular inquiry was mandatory before imposing the penalty and that the show-cause notice provided insufficient time for a reply. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act does not mandate a regular inquiry prior to removal or retirement. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding the notice period, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice to his defense caused by the shortened timeframe. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
- Does Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act require a regular inquiry before the removal or retirement of an employee?
- Can an employee challenge a disciplinary action on the basis of a shortened notice period if they cannot demonstrate prejudice to their defense?
- Section 17(1-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was serving in the respondent-Authority as Budget and Accounts Officer in Hyderabad. There were allegations that a large sum had been paid .To a gas- filling station at Suddu fraudulently. An enquiry was held by the Finance Member. He found a number of persons including the petitioner responsible for the over--payments. Consequently, all those on whom the responsibility fell were served with notices under section 17(1-A) Water and Power Development Authority Act. After receipt of the replies varying punishments were imposed on them. The petitioner who had been an employee of the Authority for a long the was removed from service. After his - departmental representation received no favourable response he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal rejected his appeal on merits but reduced the penalty to that of compulsory retirement. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition to contentions have been raised. To begin with, it was argued that it was a case where a regular inquiry should have been held and the penalty ought not to have been imposed upon the petitioner only after the receipt of his reply to the show-cause notice. The second contention is that section 17(A), ibid, allows the officer concerned fourteen days to prepare his reply to the show-cause notice but the petitioner was given only ten days in this regard.
3. Both contentions are without any merit. The action has been taken against the petitioner under section 17(1-A), Water and Power Development Authority Act. The section as it is worded does not require that a regular inquiry should be held before the orders of retirement pr removal from service are made by the competent Authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that a full- fledged inquiry ought to have been held in his case is not acceptable. As regards the duration of the notice, it may be mentioned that the petitioner had at no stage complained that on account of the short the given to him for preparing his reply he was prejudiced in his defence. We are, therefore, not prepared to grant him leave to appeal to consider this contention alone.
4. The petition is dismissed.