MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA & 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against a major penalty of reduction of pay imposed by respondent No. 3 for alleged less billing during his tenure as an Executive Engineer with WAPDA. The core legal questions involve the competency of respondent No. 3 to initiate disciplinary action and impose penalties without proper delegation of powers under Section 20 of the Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958, the legality of dismissing a service appeal in limine involving complicated facts and law, and whether the holding of a regular inquiry could be lawfully dispensed with. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed by an authority lacking proper statutory delegation of powers, and the summary dismissal of service appeals involving complex factual and legal controversies without a regular inquiry, warrant a thorough examination by the apex court.
- Whether an authority without proper delegation of powers under Section 20 of the Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958 is competent to initiate disciplinary action and impose major penalties against a permanent WAPDA employee?
- Is it lawful for the Federal Service Tribunal to dismiss in limine a service appeal involving complicated questions of fact and law?
- Can the holding of a regular departmental inquiry be lawfully dispensed with in disciplinary proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Section 20, Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 14.4.2001 passed by the - Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 161(R) CS of 2001.
2. The petitioner was issued a letter of explanation dated 16.1.1999 followed by a show-cause notice dated 12.2.2000 by respondent No. 3 on the charges of less billing to Kohinoor Textile Mills, Rawalpindi during his posting as Executive Engineer, WAPDA (Electricity), Rawalpindi from October, 1993 to April, 1994. Another letter of explanation was issued by the respondent No. 1 on the same charges. Despite the directions given by the respondent No. 1 for withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings the respondent No. 3 proceeded to award upon the petitioner a major penalty of reduction of pay three steps down in his time pay scale for three years. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed h the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 14.4.2001.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter a/ia, contended that:-
(i) The respondent No. 3 was not competent to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner who was permanent employee of respondent No. 1. Even otherwise the respondent No. 3 had not been delegated any powers by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 20 of the Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958 (Act No. XXXI of 1958).
(ii) The Tribunal ought not have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in limine in which complicated facts and law were involved.
(i.e) The holding of regular inquiry could not be dispensed with in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.