' JUSTICE (R) MANSUR ALAMGIR QAZ1 (MEMBER).---Appellant, feeling aggrieved has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 9-5-2001 whereby the appellant has been given Major Penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect, which was finally confirmed by the competent Department Authority vide order dated 15-9-2001.
2. The appellant being a deceased employee's son was initially inducted into service under the respondent-Authorities on 10-2-1992 and was, in due course, promoted as Assistant Lineman on 10-5-1999.
3. On 26-3-2001, the respondent issued a notice under Rule 5(iv) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to the appellant as to why action be not taken against him for being wilfully absent from duty from 27-2-2001 to 26-3-2001.
4. The appellant never responded to the above letter. On 9-5-2001, the respondents imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant with immediate effect. He preferred a departmental appeal on 18-7-2001 but the same was turned down on 15-9-2001 and, thereafter , he filed the present appeal on 19-3-2002.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel from both sides we have perused the record and heard the arguments advanced from both sides.
6. At the very outset the learned counsel for the respondents took up the plea that as the departmental appeal against order dated 9-5-2001 was timed-barred hence appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was not competent.
7. He has further vehemently stressed that even the appeal filed before the Tribunal is badly time- barred and that the appellant had not even filed an application seeking condonation of delay while filing the present appeal and, therefore, contends that appeal being legally incompetent be dismissed with costs.
8. He has also placed reliance on Rule 11 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, 1998 SCMR 882 and has cited 1990 SCMR 1440, 1992 SCMR 1136 and PLD 1977 SC 397 in support of his contention.
9. On the other hand the learned counsel has very candidly acceded to all that has been asserted by the learned counsel for the respondents but submits that the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 came into operation on 27-5-2000 and thus the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 had lost their efficacy in relation to disciplinary actions being taken against WAPDA employees.
10. Further submits that the entire process adopted by the respondents against the appellant is void ab initio and legally not sustainable and contends that in such like situations, limitation was never a bar for deciding causes by appropriate fora. He has placed reliance on judgment in Appeal No,37(Q)(C.S.) 2001, in Mirza Muhammad Sharif v. Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal on 17-9-2002 and reported as 2003 PLC (C.S.) 600 ruling that:--- --Civil servant was dismissed from service after conducting enquiries against him by order of Chief Executive Officer on certain allegations---Civil servant was dismissed from service after initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him under Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 at the time when Government Servants Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had already come into the field---According to S.12 of the said Ordinance all proceedings initiated on commencement of the Ordinance were to be governed by provisions of that law---Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against civil servant under Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, was thus unlawful and void ab initio---Chief Executive Officer who ordered dismissal- of civil servant, was not Competent Executive Officer who ordered dismissal of civil servant, was not Competent Authority to make such order as he was only delegated financial and administrative powers of General Manager---Powers delegated to Chief Executive Officer at best were meant to enable him to perform day to day routine administrative and financial powers for ensuring smo oth and efficient operations of the Company and he was not conferred powers to act as "Appointing Authority" Chief Executive Officer, in circumstances, could not award major penalty of dismissed from service to an Officer who was recruited by Chairman who was Competent Authority---Civil servant was grossly discriminated against as other employees connected with management of Regional Store along with civil servant were all exonerated---Disciplinary proceedings initiated against civil servant, which had culminated into his dismissal, being arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and incompetent, were of no legal consequence---Order of dismissal of civil servant from service was set aside and he was reinstated in service."
12. Therefore in light of the judgment delivered by a Bench comprising of the then Honourable Chairman of this Tribunal and a learned Member on 17-9-2002, we find no other option but to agree with what the learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice and the dictum laid down under this judgment.
13. Hence, on the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that the respondents' case suffers from legal infirmities. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant on 26-3-2001 and culminating in his compulsory retirement vide orders dated 9-5-2001 and 15-9-2001 were arbitrary, unjust and of no legal consequence. We accordingly accept the appeal and set aside orders dated 9-5-2001 and 15-9-2001 and direct that the appellant be reinstated into service with effect from 9- 5-2001, the day when he was compulsorily retired, with all back-benefits available to him under the law.
14. However, if the respondents so decide they shall be within their competence to initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant and, if so, then the said process should be completed within two months.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Parties be informed.