' A. O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-The appellant, who was serving as a Meter Reader in WAPDA, and was posted as such in the Cantonment Sub-Division, was dismissed from service by Respondent No, 2, XEN (E), WAPDA, Mardan, by his order dated 3rd June, 1982. He represented departmentally against this order and his representation was rejected by Respondent No, 1, by an order dated 24th June, 1982. He appealed against this order before this Tribunal on 20th July, 1982. The appeal, having been admitted, was heard today and is being disposed of by this order.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had been guilty of misconduct, inasmuch as he had attempted to reverse/slow the single phase meter in the name of the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mardan, care of Din Muhammad, son of Firdaus, installed in a shop inside New Bus Adda, Mardan, when he was caught in the act by an Inspection Team. It was further alleged that, at that time, he was in possession of a meter seal, which he was going to place on the meter, after carrying on the reversal/slowing process but was caught before he could complete the process and the seal was seized from his possession. Further he had confessed his guilt and admitted that he had agreed with one Safdar son of Abdur Sattar to do the tampering, on payment of Rs, 100 and had purchased the seal for replacement, on payment of Rs, 25 from somebody whom he had named. In view of this confessional statement, which was signed by the appellant on the date of occurrence, he was asked to show cause against any of the major/ minor penalties prescribed under the rules.
3. The appellant submitted his explanation on 30th January, 1982 claiming that he was innocent and that he had not admitted his guilt but had been forced to sign on a blank piece of paper, with the intention of involving him in a false case. The competent authority, having considered his explanation unsatisfactory, passed the impugned order.
4. Having heard the parties at length and perused the case record, including the relevant documents on the enquiry file, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal.
The contention of the appellant that he was forced to sign on a blank piece of paper is, on the face of it unbelieveable. The appellant is a grown-up person of normal intelligence and physique and the question of anybody forcing him to sign on a piece of blank paper just does not arise. The confessional statement, signed by him, has, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to be treated as correct and genuine.
5. It has been stated in the memo. Of appeal, that, since the allegation levelled against him had been denied, the case should have been decided after proper enquiry and not in the summary manner in which it was disposed of. We do not see any force in this stand of the appellant, which was also repeated during the bearing before us, because the facts alleged and the evidence on which they `are based, are so clear and palpable as to require no oral evidence. Formal enquiry was, therefore, not called for and had' rightly been dispensed with by the relevant authority.
6. In the light of the above, we are satisfied that the guilt of the appellant had been fully proved and that he was rightly punished for miscondnct under the WAPDA (E & D) Rules, 1978. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.