Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1228 1989 SLD 1228 1989 PLC 292
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 114(L) of 1984, decided on 6th March, 1989.
CH. HASAN NAWAZ AND KH. ABDUL, JALIL, MEMBERS
Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents.

GULZAR HUSSAIN

VS

WAPDA

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978-- ---R. 5(iv) & (v)--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--Removal from service for misconduct--Legality of--Employee was proceeded against in accordance with provisions of R. 5(iv) of the Rules--No notice was served in compliance with provisions of R. V(a) and V(b) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules--Neither there was provisional determination of penalty to be imposed nor employee was called upon to show cause against proposed action--Employee was removed from service merely on account of unauthorised absence for a period of short duration of only five days--Punishment awarded to employee was by no means proportionate to the quantum of his guilt--Nothing was brought on record to show that employee was in the habit of remaining away from office without leave so as to bring his case within mischief of misconduct--Employee's removal from service was thus legally not sustainable and was set aside in appeal. JUDGMENT CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--While he was working as Office Chowkidar, during the year 1983-84, at village Khairanwala in Sheikhupura Sub-­Division, the appellant was served with notice dated 18-8-1983 (Annex.-A) which said that he remained wilfully absent from duty during the period from 10-8-1983 to 14-8-1983, without any intimation to the Office and that "this act of omission and commission being of serious nature warrants strict disciplinary proceedings" against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, applicable to him. This notice shows that on consideration of his case, the competent authority decided that no formal inquiry needs to be conducted in the matter and that proceedings should be held under the provisions of Rule 5(iv) of the WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978. He was called upon to explain in writing within 14 days of the receipt of the notice as to why "all or any of the minor penalty/penalties described in Rule 4 of the Rules, "should not be imposed" upon him and why he "should not be proceeded against under Rule 5(v) of WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978. 2. It appears from the record that he reported for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492