' This petition under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 has been submitted by Mr. Inayat Subhan Bill Distributor, Hazro Sub-Division, WAPDA, against Ali Zaman Executive Engineer (E) WAPDA, Attock. The petitioner was employed as bill distributor under the respondent and the duty of meter reader was also performed by him. The petitioner was elected as Divisional Chairman for Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union for Attock Division which was disliked by the respondent. The Line Superintendent of Hazro Sub-Division was deputed by the S. D.
0., Hazro in connection with Truck but the respondents misbehaved with him and the entire staff including S. D.
0., Hazro in a joint appeal submitted to the Superintending Engineer, Rawalpindi Circle asked for enquiry against the respondent. The respondent without conducting any enquiry and without observing the rules issued the dismissal order of the petitioner as a measure of victimization. The charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in November, 1980 which was more than one month old and as such according to S.
0. 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner was time-barred. It has been submitted that no enquiry was held against the petitioner and that the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1978 have no legal status as these have not been approved as required under section 29 of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that he should be re-instated with full) back benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was a civil servant within the meaning of WAPDA Amendment Act and in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 only the Services Tribunal had the authority to deal with his petition. This matter has already been decided and it has been held in a number of cases that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was applicable to the employees of WAPDA and that the Commission had jurisdiction to deal with all cases of WAPDA employees.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner had admitted the charge on the basis of which he has been dismissed from service and therefore, there was no need for any enquiry or show-cause notice. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the Line Superintendent had no authority to demand a truck but he was condemning the higher officers like S. D. O., Hattian for not giving the truck for which the respondent reprimanded him. The S. D. O., Hazro and his other colleagues reported against the respondent to the Chief Engineer WAPDA. The Chief Engineer got an enquiry held by the Superintending Engineer who found the complaint against the respondent uncalled for. The S. D. O. Of Hazro then apologized to the respondent who forgave him and the present petitioner also wanted to be forgiven but the respondent had nothing against him because the orders of dismissal were all passed officially and not due to any personal reason. It has been submitted that the petitioner had confessed his misconduct in his reply to the charge-sheet and as such there was no need for conducting any enquiry into the same.
4. I have gone through the papers submitted by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I find that the petitioner was in- evolved in three different cases as under :-
(1) Appeal against misbehavior of the respondent.
(2) Charge-sheet for breach of instructions and for giving an illegal connection at a premises which had been disconnected for nonpayment of electricity bills ; and
(3) Installation of service line for domestic connection by the petitioner.
' As regards misbehaviour of the respondent, the matter was enquired into and the S.D.0., Hazro apologised to the respondent who forgave him. It has been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner also apologized but he was not forgiven and that the respondent had no grudge against him and the orders of dismissal was all done officially and not due to any personal reason. Nothing has been produced to show as to what action was taken against the petitioner. It appears that the matter against him was dropped as no charge-sheet or show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner in this connection.
5. As regards second case the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet and on receipt of reply to that charge-sheet, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 20th rune, 1981. The respondent has said nothing about this charge-sheet in his reply statement.
6. As regards the third case, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner confessed his misconduct in his reply to the charge-sheet and as such there was no need for an enquiry into this matter. He has enclosed a letter written by the petitioner saying that S. D. O. Hattian had given his consent for the meter and that he was allowed to use the electricity as he was one of the members of the staff. The petitioner has however submitted that he was not aware of the rules and was repentant and that he should be forgiven. On this the S. D.
0., Hattian had recommended severe disciplinary action against the petitioner but there is nothing on record to show what action has been taken against the petitioner in this connection.
7. The petitioner admitted his mistake in the case relating to installation of electricity and it is in relation to his case that the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and as such no enquiry was necessary. Needless to say that no order of dismissal has been issued in relation to this case. The petitioner has been dismissed on a charge-sheet served on him in connection with giving a connection at premises which had been disconnected for non-payment of electricity bills. The respondent having found the defence reply unsatisfactory dismissed the petitioner forthwith without holding any enquiry into the matter. Since no enquiry was held in this case on which the petitioner's services has been dispensed with, I hold the termination order as illegal and direct that the petitioner should be reinstated with full back benefits.