SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondent in this petition for special leave to appeal was a Meter Reader in the Sultanpura Sub---Division (E) of the petitioner authority. On 2-3-1982 he was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Department for accepting illegal gratification from a consumer. He was later convicted and his appeal is pending in the High Court. Immediately after his arrest, he was placed under suspension. Subsequently by an order dated 10-4-1982 he was removed from service under section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958. He challenged his removal from service in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. By an order dated 18-7-1984 the learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and set aside the order of removal. The petitioner authority seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal.
2. The case of the petitioner-authority before the Tribunal was that the respondent had worked in four Sub-Divisions and his explanation had been called for fifteen times. He had been charge sheeted seven times and he had been punished at least four times. The learned Tribunal found that all the punishment imposed upon the respondent has been set aside by the Labour Court and that the callings of explanation had not resulted in any disciplinary proceedings against him; further; the mere pendency of the criminal case did not justify his removal from service. It also noticed that the guide-lines provided in office memorandum of 17-4-1982 issued by the petitioner authority for the purpose of taking action under the drastic provision of Section 17 (1-A) ibid, had not been followed in this case. Apart from that, the petitioner authority had not cared to produce the annual confidential reports or the other relevant documents showing that the action taken against him was justified.
3. In support of this petition it vas contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner authority that the jurisdiction enjoyed by the Tribunal in appeals preferred by former employees of WAPDA who had been removed from service under Section 17 (1-A), ibid, was of a limited nature. In support of this contention, he referred to a decision of this Court reported as WAPDA and another v.
Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18. He further contended that mere non-compliance with the guidelines given in the office memorandum of 17-4-1982 did not justify interference by the learned Tribunal with an order of removal.
4. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner need examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
In the meanwhile the operation of the order of the Tribunal is suspended. The appeal may be made ready on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.