' A.O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-- The appellant was appointed as Line Superintendent (Grade I) on 20-4-1959. On 19-4-1963, he was promoted as S.D.O. And on 2-11-1976 as Executive Engineer. He was posted in Khanewal Division, when, on 21-9-1982, by an order passed under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, he was removed from service.
2. According to the appellant, his removal from service was not justified, as no charge-sheet was served on him and no explanation called. He had never been punished at any time during his career of more than 23 years during which he had rendered meritorious service and without any adverse entry in his A .C.Rs, It was stated on his behalf that because of his competence and performance, he had been nominated by the WAPDA for participation in a course on "Rural Electrification" in the U.S.A. Which was scheduled for February, 1983, but he was removed from service earlier. The circumstances in which this was done, according to the appellant, clearly indicated that the action was not bona fide and that resort to section 17(IA) was taken in a mala fide manner. It was explained that, although on account of audit objection raised by the concerned departments a Committee was constituted by WAPDA to find out the responsibility for certain irregularities committed by various officers within the jurisdiction of the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Multan and the Committee, after examining the pros and cons of the matter recommended suitable disciplinary action against as many as 7 officers, it was the appellant alone who was removed under section 17(R), while the other six were only served with show-cause notices and thereafter given warnings, which fact clearly indicated that the appellant was discriminated against and section 17(IA) was resorted to without any justification whatsoever.
3. On behalf of the respondent-Department, it was argued that the case was not justiciable by the Tribunal, because, according to them,. Section 17(IC) barred the Tribunal's jurisdiction in the matter.
It was also contended that the Authority had no malice against the appellant and that the action taken against him was based on the report of the Enquiry Committee, which was considered by the General Manager (Admn.), who recommended his removal under section 17(IA) of the WAPDA Act.
4. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the Tribunal has dealt with the matter in the case of Mian Mahmood v. WAPDA 1983 PLC (C.S.) 556, wherein it has held that the Tribunal has full jurisdiction to examine the propriety of orders passed by the WAPDA under section 17(IA) of the WAPDA Act. In view of this ruling, which is being followed up till now by us, we do not see any merit in the preliminary objection raised by the respondent.
5. As for the allegation of mala fide, the matter will be discussed on the basis of the facts and circumstances, as disclosed by the relevant documents adduced by the two sides.
6. After hearing the parties at length and perusing the relevant documents, we have come to the conclusion that, while there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that he should have been charge-sheeted and explanation called before he could be removed under section 17(IA), because section 17(IA) gives absolute powers to the Authority to remove from service an employee without notice and without stating the grounds for the removal, we accept the plea of the appellant that there was absolutely no justification for the action taken against him under section 17(IA).
7. Although section 17(IA) gives absolute powers to the Authority to remove an employee without stating the reasons therefor, it does not give absolute powers to the Authority to act arbitrarily in the matter. Although the power of removal is vested in the Authority, it is not contemplated that the Authority will act like a mediaeval despot and remove its employees without any justification. In the present case, we find from the record that the report of the Enquiry Committee, dated 20-8-1982, proposed disciplinary action against the appellant and six others. On 5-9-1982, the General Manager (Admn.) put up a note mentioning this, whereupon the Chairman observed, on 12-9-1982, that he would await "various recommends to the Authority". This was followed, on 15-9-1982, by a note of the General Manager (Admn.) which stated, inter alia, as follows: "On re-examination of the case of Sh. Muhammad Ali, XEN(E) Khanewal, it is felt that his case also deserves to be considered for action under 17(I-A). Furthermore this officer is notorious for his corrupt practices which fact is also known to the M(P) and Chairman.
' The Authority may, therefore, consider his immediate removal from service under 17-(I-A) without assigning any reason by giving him 30 days' pay in lieu of notice as required under the law ."
' All the Members accepted the suggestion of the General Manager (Admn.). However, it may be noted that neither in the note of the General Manager nor in the acceptance of the suggestion by the Authority any indication was given of the material on the basis of which the appellant's case was considered to be a fit one for action under section 17(IA). On the contrary, the report of the Enquiry Committee clearly stated that "no monetary loss has been caused to the Authority in the above 4 orders". Besides, from the A.C.R. Dossier of the appellant, it is seen that right from the beginning of his career as an officer of gazetted rank as S.D.O., in 1970 upto the year ending 30-6- 1981, he had been adjudged as an intelligent, hardworking and well-behaved officer who knew his job thoroughly well and there was no adverse remark against him at any time during this entire period. In the face of this, the remark of the General Manager (Admn.) to the effect that "The officer is notorious for his corrupt practices" does not appear to be factually correct. Action taken on such a report only indicates that sufficient care and circumspection was not exercised by the Authority when it approved the action proposed by the General Manager.
8. Both in the memo of appeal and during the arguments, it was alleged, on behalf of the appellant, that the action taken against him was motivated by considerations other than those relating to the conduct and performance of the appellant. It was explained that the appellant had taken action for the recovery of an amount of Rs,-15.27 lac due from the F.F.Industry, Kabirwala and that he had issued a letter in this connection to the Revenue Officer, Khanewal for necessary action on 7-8- 1982. It was further alleged that the Chairman of the Authority was interested in the affairs of the F.F.
Industry, since his wife, Mrs. Nasreen Butt was a Director of the said firm and the timing of the action taken against the appellant showed that this was soon after .He had directed the Revenue Officer to recover the dues from the F.F. Industry. It was denied, on behalf of the respondent-Department, during the arguments, that the action taken by the appellant against the F.F. Industry had anything to do with his removal from service. Although the facts alleged by the appellant, in regard to matters between him and the F.F. Industry, have not been denied, it was denied that there was any connection between the action taken by him against the F.F. Industry and the action taken against him by the Authority. There is no doubt that, although the appellant had refused to oblige the F.F.
Industry by returning to them a document, on the basis of which the dues amounting to Rs,15.27 lac were claimed, and he was removed from service soon thereafter, no direct link can be established between the two actions and, therefore, it cannot be categorically stated that the Chairman, WAPDA and other Members of the Authority took action against the appellant to punish him for the action taken by him against the F.F. Industry. Nevertheless, because the appellant had consistently a good record of service and the General Manager (Admn.) had proposed action against him without any material at all to justify the same, it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the Authority's decision to remove the appellant under section 17(IA) was taken with a fair and open mind.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent-Department could not furnish any justification for discriminating against the appellant by singling him out for action under section 17(IA) while dealing lightly with six other colleagues of his similarly found guilty of irregularities by the Committee.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the action taken against the appellant under section 17(IA) was not justified and, consequently, cannot be upheld. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the appellant re-instated in service with effect from the date of removal, with all the consequential benefits of the re-instatement.
11. No order as to costs.