' Ch. A. REHMAN KHAN (MEMBER).--Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, Assistant, Revenue Office, Hafizabad (E), WAPDA, the appellant, has appealed against the impugned order dated 6-3-1982. The extracts of impugned order No, C-41, are appended below:- "Consequent upon consideration of defence reply of Muhammad Ilyas Assistant (U/S) Revenue Office, No, I, Gujranwala to the show-cause notice, examination of relevant documents/record and after granting him personal hearing on 26-12-1981, the undersigned finds him guilty of misconduct.
Therefore, 1, Ch. Khadim Hussain, Chairman, A.E.B. Gujranwala as competent authority, under Rule 2(3) of West Pakistan WAPDA Employees under (E & D) Rules, 1978, hereby impose the penalty of stoppage of next annual increments for a period of two years without future effect.
' Muhammad Ilyas Assistant, Revenue Office, Gujranwala who was placed under suspension vide Chief Engineer, Lahore's office order No, 145, dated 12-7-1976 is hereby reinstated in service. The balance pay of intervening period of his suspension is hereby confiscated and the said period is ordered to be pleaded as leave without pay (extraordinary leave admissible under the rules).
' His posting orders are being issued separately."
' The appellant challenged the impugned order before the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 7 after serving grievance notice under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969, dated 26-4-1984. This grievance notice was returned by the learned Punjab Labour Court vide order dated 13-3-1982. The appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 15-3-1983.
2. The appellant while serving as Assistant in the Revenue Office No, 1, WAPDA, Gujranwala was involved in a criminal case and, therefore, was placed under suspension vide order dated 12-7- 1976. He was later acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption vide his judgment dated 11-12-1980. The respondent department, however, did not reinstate the appellant with the plea that it was not an honorable acquittal. The appellant in fact was given the benefit of doubt.
3. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 7-9-1981, the extracts of which are appended below:- SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE "During the course of inquiry conducted on 4-8-1976 by Mian Muhammad Aslam, the then S.E., Gujranwala Circle into a raid case conducted by Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala on 9-7-1976, Rana Ashfaq Ahmad, LKBC in his written statement given to the above Inquiry Officer stated that accused Muhammad Amin, the then Junior Officer (Revenue) No, I, Gujranwala used to obtain illegal gratification through you.
' Another LKBC namely Muhammad Abdullah Bhatti in his written statement given to the said Inquiry Officer has stated that the above-named accused Junior Officer (Revenue) had demanded Rs,5,000 as illegal gratification through you for reinstating the above-named LKBCs. He has further stated that you also demanded Rs,100 for you as well as Rs,100 for the above Junior Officer (Revenue) on account of their posting after their reinstatement.
' On 9-7-1976 you, the above-named Junior Officer (Revenue) the above named LKBCs and other officials had a lunch in Amritsari Hotel, payment of which (amount to Rs,64.75) was made by the above-named LKBC.
' After lunch Raja Hassan Akhtar, Magistrate 1st Class of Gujranwala conducted a raid on 9-7-1976 and arrested you and the above-named accused Junior Officer (Revenue) while accepting bribe.
The tainted currency notes were recovered from your possession by the Magistrate. The above Special Case No, 325/80 was tried against you and Muhammad Amin, Junior Officer (Revenue)
(U/S) in the Court of Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi Division Camp at Gujranwala who vide his orders dated 11-12-1980 acquitted you from the above charge by giving you benefit of doubt.
' You have not been given a clean slate in this case as is evident from the above orders. Moreover, your conduct has been found undesirable in this case which render yourself liable for disciplinary action under the Rules.
' I, Ch. Khadim Hussain, Chairman A.E.B. Gujranwala being "competent authority" have considered the case under Rule 5(iv)(a) of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978 and upon consideration, I have decided that it is not necessary to have a formal enquiry conducted in this case. You are, therefore, hereby directed under Rule 5(iv) (b) ibid to show-cause in writing within fourteen days of the receipt of this notice why all or any of the major penalty/penalties described in Rule 4 ibid should not be imposed on you.
' Your explanations should reach the undersigned within the aforesaid period failing which it shall be presumed that you have declined to offer the same and ex parte action will be taken against you accordingly. The duplicate copy of the show-cause notice should please be returned to the undersigned duly acknowledged."
' The appellant submitted his explanation dated 19-9-1981, categorically denying the allegations leveled in the show-cause notice.
4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the acquittal of the appellant by the learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption was basically the result of inconclusive evidence which was termed by the learned Judge as the benefit of doubt to the accused. The appellant should, therefore, be considered to have been acquitted honourably. It was further argued that no departmental enquiry was ordered to probe into the charges leveled against the appellant in the show-cause notice and the competent authority has also not recorded the reasons as required under Rule 5(iv)
(a) of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978. It was contended that the impugned order passed against the appellant, therefore, was illegal and ultra vires. The impugned order passed by the Chairman of the Electricity Board cannot be considered legal because under the rules the Chairman cannot pass any order in his individual capacity. He cannot be further delegated powers of the Board which are initially delegated to the Board by the Authority. Secondly, the appellant was kept under suspension beyond a period of three months and no orders were passed by anyone to regularize the suspension period beyond the limit of three months.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment in the case of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Naeem v. Executive Engineer, Cantt. Division (E) WAPDA, Lahore, Appeal No, 174(R) of 1982, 1985 PLC page 390 contended that the (E & D) Rules are not applicable to the appellant but Standing Orders for WAPDA employees are instead legally applicable to him in this case. Therefore, the procedure of dispensing with proper enquiry against the appellant was not tenable under law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent department submitted that the appeal was time-barred because the appellant addressed the grievance notice to the Chairman WAPDA instead of the G.M.
(Distribution) who was the appellate authority in his case. His application before the Labour Court, therefore, was not considered proper and the time spent with the Labour Court cannot be considered legitimately spent to file the appeal in time before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the appellant did not seek any departmental remedy after the Labour Court's decision to return the grievance notice to the appellant. It was contended that the judgment of the learned Special Judge for Anti-corruption cannot be considered anything other than what it actually conveys. "I, therefore, giving him the benefit of doubt acquit him from the said charges." If the intention of the learned Judge was to honorably acquit the appellant he would have ordered so. In the absence of any such pronouncement it was not appropriate to interpret the judgment otherwise.
7. As regards the limitation of time in filing the appeal, we do not consider that the appeal before the Tribunal is time-barred. The confusion as to the right forum of appeal for WAPDA employees which existed earlier was clarified only by the learned Supreme Court in the case of F.U. Malik v.
WAPDA and another 1983 SCMR 663. The present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 15-3- 1983 just two days after the grievance notice was returned by the Punjab Labour Court on 13-3- 1983. In his appeal the appellant had also mentioned that to avoid any legal complication he was sending his appeal to G.M. (Distribution) simultaneously to seek departmental remedy. Although the appeal at that' time could be treated as premature but the respondent department has not so far taken any action in this regard. We, therefore, consider the appeal as competent as of today.
8. We have perused the relevant record presented by both the parties and we are convinced that the appellant in the criminal case was not honorably acquitted. He was given the benefit of doubt.
Also, we are satisfied from the record that the respondent-department did take necessary permission of the competent Authority to extend the period of suspension as required by rules. The appellant is a civil servant therefore, the contention regarding applicability of WAPDA's Standing Order only in this regard is not correct. We are convinced that the respondent department was well within their rights to serve him with the show-cause notice under Rule 5(iv)(b) of WAPDA employees (E & D) Rules, 1978. We, therefore, do not find it proper to interfere in the exercise of powers conferred on the competent Authority in this respect.
9. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the competent Authority has adopted the right course of action in this case. The appeal cannot be upheld. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with no orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.