SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The grievance in this petition was that appeal of the petitioner against the order of his compulsory retirement was not being decided by respondent No,1, the Managing Director (Power), WAPDA.
2. Report and parawise comments have been submitted by the respondents. It has been stated that vide order, dated 29-9-1999 of the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner was directed to be removed from service. Against the said order he filed an appeal before the Chief Executive, FESCO on which the penalty of removal was converted into compulsory retirement vide order, dated 1-5- 2000. The appeal against the said order was statedly filed before respondent No,1 on 6-6-2000. The position taken by the respondents is that the petitioner never filed any departmental representation on 6-6-2000. Further, second departmental appeal was not otherwise maintainable.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Fauzia Siddique Qureshi v.
Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others 2004 PLC (C. S.) 781 to submit that although, no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 1-5-2000, even if it had been filed the same being incompetent, the departmental authorities were under no legal obligation to decide it.
4. The case was repeatedly called but the learned counsel for the petitioner did not enter appearance. Perusal of the record does not show that the appeal dated 6-6-2000 was filed as being asserted in this writ petition. Further, even if it had been filed the second appeal was not competent under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline Rules), 1978. Therefore, no case is made out for the issuance of a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus prayed for in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.