1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Both the parties to a Service Appeal partly allowed by the Service Tribunal, seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 17-10-1984.
2. The employee (petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1187/1984) was suspended on 6-11-1977, charge- sheeted on 10-11-1977 and on receipt of its reply was retired from service. He challenged this order in Labour Court and succeeded. The appeal of the Authority was dismissed on 7-7-1982. On 28-7- 1982 by an office order passed under section 17(1-A) he was removed from service with immediate effect by giving him thirty days' pay in lieu thereof. He challenged this order in the Service Tribunal on the grounds that when the Labour Appellate Tribunal had ordered an inquiry into the charges the Authority could not summarily remove him from service and that it was a case of victimisinog him for his Trade Union activities. The Tribunal upheld the order but modified it to that of retirement instead of removal from service as he had an unblemished record of service upto 1978.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel representing the employee contended that the allegations against the petitioner were factual that an elaborate inquiry into the allegations was necessary and in any case there was allegation of bias and factual mala fide which should have been in any case inquired into and a finding recorded before adjudicating on the merits of the order of removal from service. According to him, the action was not legally permissible under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act in cases involving misconduct.
4. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, the learned counsel representing the Authority contended that as the charges against the employee were serious and his conduct habitually in violation of the rules governing his duties the punishment of removal was proper and should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal on considerations that he had an unblemished record of service or that such an action was harsh and uncalled for.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that no question of law of public importance arises in these petitions to merit further consideration in this Court. We have in Civil Appeals 170-173 of 1983, decided on 16-12-1985 (reported as 1986 SCMR 18) upheld on the basis of decision in M.
6. Yasmin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1980 SC 22 the Tribunal's powers to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the orders impugned before it and have conceded to it, the powers of varying the order of removal and converting it into one of retirement. Similarly, it cannot be said that every case of irregularity committed by an employee must be followed by a departmental inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and action under section 17(1-A) is not permissible. Actually, it has been held that such an action is permissible even where departmental inquiry has been started Abdul Karim v. The West Pakistan Province PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 298. The only ground on which such an order could be challenged was of mala fide and coram non judice. The ground of mala fide was in fact raised in the appeal before the Tribunal but certainly not in the manner provided in rule 6(2) of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 which required full disclosure of facts with supporting material summarised and on affidavit. Besides, the Service Tribunal had proceeded to justify the action taken against him on the basis of his own admissions in reply to the charge-sheet earlier served upon him.
7. In the circumstances, there is no merit in both the petitions and leave to appeal is refused.