1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is an appeal directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed on 2-8-1984, whereby the respondent's appeal against the order of his removal from service by the Water and Power Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as WAPDA or the Authority) was accepted and the respondent reinstated into service from the date of his removal, with consequential benefits.
2. The relevant facts are that 135 T.A. And D.A. Bills alongwith other bills were pending, without any action thereon in the Office of Mr. Nasrullah Piracha, Executive Engineer for over six months. Some office-bearers of the WAPDA Employees Union met the said Executive Engineer on 28-8-1982 and impressed upon him the desirability of passing orders on those bills. The Executive Engineer promised to do the needful, but instead of taking any positive action thereon sent the bills back to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned on 22-9-1982 for removal of certain objections. This annoyed the employees of the WAPDA and they gathered outside the office of the S.D.O. To demonstrate against this order. The Executive Engineer also happened to be present there incidentally.
3. Hence, they not only demonstrated against his action but also manhandled him. A case was, thereupon, registered with the police against some of the employees in this connection but the respondent's name was not included against the employees proceeded against. Ultimately, even the persons named in the F.I.R. Were acquitted by the Magistrate vide order, dated 14-9-1983.
4. However, before that date, the respondent was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. This order was challenged by him by filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
5. The Tribunal in its judgment, dated 2-8-1984 observed that the incident in question had been inquired into by a Committee of two persons and a careful perusal of the record of the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee showed that although some persons had actively participated in the demonstration, wherein the Executive Engineer was manhandled, there was, however, nothing against the respondent directly. The only fault attributed to him was that he was seen telephoning somewhere from the office of the S.D.O. Where the incident took place. The respondent being an office-bearer of the Employees Union, it was the view of the Tribunal that the respondent was constrained to be present at the scene of occurrence because of the pressure of the members of the Union; otherwise, he himself would have been maltreated by them. In these circumstances, holding that the respondent was not an active participant in the incident and that nothing else was against him, the Tribunal found his order of removal under section 17(1-A) unjustified and accepted his appeal. He was, accordingly, ordered to be reinstated into service with consequential benefits.
6. In support of this appeal before us, it was contended that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to question an order passed by WAPDA under the powers conferred upon it by section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act and that in any case the Service Tribunal could not have substituted its own discretion for that of the Authority and to have set aside the orders of removal from service and substituted it with the order of reinstatement.
7. Both these pleas are without force. This Court has already held in WAPDA and another v.
8. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18 that the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and entertain appeals with regard to terms and conditions of the WAPDA employees including appeals against its orders with regard to these matters passed under section 17(1-A) and can set aside orders passed by the Authority under this provisions which are mala fide, tainted with bias and not passed bona fide. In this case the Tribunal, after examining all the relevant facts, came to the conclusion that the impuged order of the Authority was arbitrary. Hence it was not passed bona fide, Consequently, in view of the rule laid down by this Court in the case of Muhammad Arshad Qureshi, noted above, the Service Tribunal was not precluded from setting aside the order of removal passed by the Authority and substituting it with the order of reinstatement.
9. The upshot is that this appeal directed against the impugned order of the Service Tribunal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed hereby, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.