| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3079 = 1981 SLD 3079 = 1981 PLC 286 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 8746/S of 1980, decided on 11th October, 1980.
Presented By: Saad Saood Jan, J
Iftikhar Ali Sheikh for Petitioner. Zia ,Mahmood Mirza for
Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 8746/S of 1980, decided on 11th October, 1980.
Presented By: Saad Saood Jan, J
Iftikhar Ali Sheikh for Petitioner. Zia ,Mahmood Mirza for
Respondent.
SAEED AHMAD
VERSUS
WAPDA
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-Writ petition-Explanation of WAPDA employee called for in respect of alleged misconduct-Contention that impugned statement did not constitute breach of service discipline yet to be decided Petition, in circumstances, held, premature hence dismissed. Date of hearing : 11th October 1980. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority which is respondent in this writ petition. He appeared as a witness for defence before a Summary Military Court which was trying one Abdul Qayyum Khan Arif on a criminal charge. During the course of his statement he is alleged to have made certain highly defamatory allegations against the respondent and its Chairman. By a letter dated 31-7-1980 which is Annexure 'H' on the file he was charged with breach of service discipline and asked to submit his reply. The petitioner has challenged the legality of this letter. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is against para. 4 of the above mentioned letter. It reads as follows :- "It has been established that you levelled the above allegations with a view to malign and defame the Chairman and other senior officials of WAPDA which amounts to breach of `Service Discipline' and `unbecoming of an employee of the Authority' and by doing so, you are guilty of `misconduct' within the meaning of rule 2(5) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978." The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that so far no inquiry bas been held yet he has been found guilty of misconduct. Thus he has been condemned unheard. This is a breach of the principles of natural justice as embodied in the adage audi alteram partem. 3. The learned standing counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent. He…