WAPDA, LAHORE And 2 Other vs KARAMAT ALI BAJWA
The respondent, a WAPDA employee, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence from duty. After exhausting departmental remedies, he appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the respondent conceded the merits of the charge but argued that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate, relying on Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978. The Tribunal accepted this argument, finding the dismissal harsh, and substituted it with a lesser penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the pay scale for three years. WAPDA petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, contending that the respondent's prolonged absence constituted misconduct warranting dismissal and that Rule 5-A was inapplicable to the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contention regarding the applicability of Rule 5-A and the appropriateness of the penalty required further judicial consideration. The Court thus set the stage to determine whether the Tribunal erred in applying Rule 5-A to mitigate the penalty for misconduct involving prolonged unauthorized absence.
- Does Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules 1978 apply to cases of prolonged unauthorized absence from duty?
- Can a Service Tribunal substitute a penalty of dismissal with a lesser punishment based on the principle of proportionality?
- Does prolonged absence from duty without leave constitute misconduct warranting dismissal under WAPDA service rules?
- Rule 5-A, WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules 1978
- Rule 5, WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules 1978
- Rule 6, WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules 1978
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Karamat Ali Bajwa respondent, a Wapda employee, was dismissed from service by the competent Authority on 24-10-1988 as a result of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for having remained absent without leave since 14-4-1988. After availing the remedy of departmental appeal, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. It appears that during the course of hearing of the appeal, the respondent's counsel submitted that the case may be examined only in respect of quantum of punishment as to his view, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the guilt of the respondent employee.
Reliance in this behalf was placed on Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978 which reads as follows:-- "If an employee does not perform his duties diligently or is an inefficient worker, or is a habitual malingerer, that, is, a late comer, a wilful absence from duty, or avoids his duties on false pretences a written warning shall be given to him by his immediate superior and if he fails to reform himself a report shall be made within a period of to months from the date of the notice of warning to the officer named below, who may, without prejudice to the provisions of Rules 5 and 6 after obtaining his explanation, impose on him the penalty of stoppage of increment, for a period. Of one year, without cumulative effect."
2. The Tribunal allowing the request made on behalf of the respondent did not examine the merits of the case and proceeded to hold that keeping in view the charge against the respondent viz. That he remained absent from duty without sanction of leave and failed to respond to the explanation letter and the notice got published in "WAPDA KHABARNAMA", "the penalty of dismissal from service was rather harsh and that a lesser punishment would have been sufficient to meet the ends of justice". Order of dismissal from service was accordingly modified and substituted "by an order of reduction to the lowest stage in the the scale for a period of three years without future effect". This was vide order of the Tribunal dated 13-10-1993 which the petitioners have sought to assail through this petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of this petition, it is contended that the respondent had remained absent without leave for more than six months, which constitutes misconduct. He was, therefore, rightly punished with dismissal from service, which is a lawful penalty for misconduct. According to the petitioners, Rule 5-A relied upon by the learned Tribunal is not attracted to the present case. Contention raised needs consideration. Leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is accordingly granted.