The petitioner, who last hold the post of Junior Clerk in the WAPDA. has challenged by tbi3 petition an order passed on 2-4-1968, whereby the punishment earlier ordered in a departmental inquiry was set aside and the punishment of removal from service was inflicted.
2. The petitioner, an ex-Army man, was employed in the WAPDA as a Junior Clerk on 4-3-1961. He was required in December 1962 to prepare an Electricity Bill which he did. The bill was found to be mistaken and the petitioner along with his other colleagues was suspended and an inquiry was held into his conduct. As a result thereof the Competent Authority censured him by an order dated 7-11 - 1964 and while re-instating him on duty, treated the period of suspension as duty and allowed him full pay for that period. Long afterwards under instructions from the Operational Manager on 17-2-1968 the petitioner was served with another show-cause notice informing him "the case has now been reviewed by the Operational Manager Electricity WAPDA, Lahore and it has been decided that you should be dismissed from service as you have been found prima facie guilty of preparing the fictirious bill". On finding the ex. Lanation furnished not satisfactory the Chief Engineer informed him that as a result of the review he stood dismissed from service from 18-4- 1968: 1 his order has been impugned in this writ petition.
3. The main ground of attack against the order of dismissal is that it has been passed by an incompetent authority as neither the Chief Engineer nor the Operational Manager enjoyed the powers to review the punishment already inflicted.
4. It is not disputed as a fact that the petitioner was in the matter of discipline governed by the West Pakistan WAPD. Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). There has taken place a delegation of the administrative powers to the officers of the Power Wing to which the Appointing Authority, the authority competent to award major punishments the authority competent to aware: minor punishments, the Appellate Authority, the Transferring Authority etc. have all been designated. Rule 1.0 of the Rules provides for review in the following words:- , "The Authority may either on receipt of a specific reference or of its own motion at any time call for any case in which proceedings may have beet instituted under these rules and pass such orders (including orders reversing acquittal or enhancing the penalty imposed) as it may deem fit and orders to passed shall be final."
Authority has been defined in sub rule (1) of role 2 as "The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority''. It is clear, therefore, that Vie power of review is available under the Rules to the Authority as defined therein and to none else. The delegation of powers to which a reference has been made do not show that this power of review his been delegated to any officer or functionary other than the Authority itself. The learned counsel fur the respondent WAPDA had specifically obtained tan adjournment with a view to ascertain whether such a delegation of power under rule 10 had ever taken place or not. He has not been able to locate any such delegation of powers. Therefore, under the Statutory Rules applicable to the petitioner his service had been terminated by way of dismissal by a functionary who was wholly incompetent in law to deaf with him in that matter and the review proceedings followed by the order of dismissal are clearly without lawful authority and of no ' legal effect. It is declared to be so. The petitioner shall have the costs of the proceedings from the respondent WAPDA.