Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 375 1992 SLD 375 1992 PLD 201
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 229 and 230 of 1989, decision dated: 19-01-1992.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Asif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CAs. Nos.229/89 and 230/89).

Civil Appeal No.229 of 1989 WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Superintending Engineer, WAPDA Electricity, Sialkot

VS

MUHAMMAD AYUB, LinemanII, Wapda Cantt., SubDivision, Sialkot Civil Appeal No.230 of 1989 WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTH

Law:

Section:

(a) Fundamental Rules--- F.R. 54(b)---Import---Authority may withhold part of allowance and pay of a Government servant on his reinstatement. (b) Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978- ----R. 4(1)(a)(iv)---If on account of any negligence or breach of any order, a loss is caused to the WAPDA, then a recovery may be made for such pecuniary loss---Provision of R.4(1)(a)(iv) would be attracted when any financial loss has been caused. JUDGMENT ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--This order will dispose of the two appeals as they are directed against the same judgment and common point of law is involved in both the petitions. The respondent, Mohammed Ayub in Civil Appeal No. 229 and respondent Nazir Ahmed in Civil Appeal No.230 were found absent during office hours. They were proceeded under Rule 5(4) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appellant on 13-9-1982, imposed the following penalty against the respondents under Rule 4 1(a)(ii) of the Rules:- (1) That balance of pay for the suspension period was forfeited and the intervening period was ordered to be treated as leave without pay (extraordinary leave). (2) His annual increment was stopped with future effect. The respondents then preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal, by means of the impugned judgment recorded the following findings: "It is . not disputed that the appellant did not discharge duties as mentioned in the show cause notice. His contention that he did not have the knowledge of the assignment of the duty as per duty chart is not believable. There is a report of the Line Superintendent dated 26-7-1982 that the appellant and other linemen were detailed for duty on the Eid day and. the appellant and two others had failed to discharge the duty as per assignment. His report was endorsed by the Executive Engineer and it was on these reports that the Superintending Engineer served the show-cause notice on the appellant. There is nothing on the record to indicate that there was any malice behind the report made against the appellant. We find that the…
πŸ”’
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