BRIG. ABDUL RASHID (MEMBER).-The appellant. Amir. Ali Ismaili, while serving as Deputy Director Technical in the office of the General Manager North (Water) WAPDA, Peshawar was retired under section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 vide office order dated 10-4-1982. His retirement had been ordered by the Authority against whose order he could come to the Federal Service Tribunal without having to file any depart--mental appeal. He filed his present appeal before the Tribunal on 16-5-1982 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing the case before us, highlighted the WAPDA instructions on the basis of which section 17 (1-A) could be applicable to certain categories of WAPDA em--ployees. This included indifferent confidential reports and bad reputation neither of which applied to the appellant. As such, the case of retirement of the appellant was a case of mala fide pure and simple, argued the said learned counsel. In support of his contention the said learned counsel mentioned that it was Asif H. Kazi, General Manager Tarbela Dam, who had been after the appellant even though the appellant was not serving under him but was attached with foreign 'consultants TAMS. However, when questioned by us as to the hierarchical relationship of the appellant towards the said General Manager, Asif H. Kazi, the learned counsel did admit that the overall control in respect of the appellant did vest in the said General Manager, Tarbela Dam for about seven months despite appellant's attachment to Mils. TAMS, the foreign consultants at Tarbela Dam. The learned counsel also brought to our notice that the General Manager, Tarbela (Asif H. Kazi) constantly threatened the appellant to have himself posted out and this was display of open hostility of former toward the latter.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the issue that the recommendations pro forma for retirement under section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 had been completed by Asif H. Kazi, General Manager, Tarbela Dam Project on 16-3-1982 and forwarded to the Authority, when, at the said time, the appellant was no longer serving under the said General Manager and was, in fact, already employed as the Deputy Director Technical in the office of the General Manager Water (North), Peshawar. As such, this recommendation of the General Manager, Tarbela was a colourable exercise. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant placed on record D.O.
Letter No. GM (W) North/E-89/28, dated 9-3-1982 addressed to the Chief Engineer Co-ordina--tion.
(Water) WAPDA House, Lahore. This D.O. Had been written as a result of telephonic message from Lahore and said categorically that there was no one in the office of General Manager Water (North), who could be recommended for being dealt with under section 17 (1-A). This proved, clearly, that the appellant, who was at that time at Peshawar, was not considered inefficient. In this context, however, we brought to the notice of the said learned counsel that the appellant had been posted to Peshawar in February, 1982. It was, therefore, too early for anyone at Peshawar to assess his competence and then to report on him by 9-3-1982.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that the appellant's pay and allowances for over seven months had been stopped by General Manager, Tarbela which further reinforced the case of mala fide. However, as a result of further questioning by us the said learned counsel could not satisfy us and did not press the issue further.
5: The learned counsel for the respondents took the plea that the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal stood ousted as a result of section 17 (1-C).- However, without adverting to the detailed arguments which followed and which need not encumber this judgment, we dismiss this plea. OA the contrary we hold that it is by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution that we have been conferred the jurisdiction over WAPDA employees which appeared in the form of addition of section 17 (1-B) in the WAPDA Act, 1958. Simultaneously with conferment of jurisdiction on us, the jurisdiction of the High Courts stood barred. It could not be the intention of law-makers to confer jurisdiction upon us under section '' 17 (I-B) and then to take it away under section 17 (1-C) thus, leaving the WAPDA employees without any legal remedy. As to the mala fide, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, in any case, not ousted even under the P.C.O., 1981.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed on record TAMS letter dated 22-8-1981 addressed to the General Manager and Project Director, Tarbela Dam in which it has been said, in so many words, that the work of the appellant was not of the required standard and that he was not acceptable to any project of TAMS. M/s. TAMS also repeated their previous request of appellant's easily transfer from TAMS.
7. We have had the benefit of perusing the service record of the appellant. His A.C.Rs. Are of an average nature. However, there are adverse entries in the report of 1978 like "does not always take interest in his work". We have also seen the proceedings of the Authority's meeting whereby the appellant was retired from service and these seem to be in order.
8. Having given this appeal our utmost consideration, we do not think that the learned counsel for the appellant has been able to make out a case of mala fide in favour of the appellant. We are also satisfied that the Authority has retired the appellant after due care and application of its mind. We do not think that this case warrants any interference bi us. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.