' JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant, who had joined as Meter Reader on 4- 8-1978, was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act by order dated 31-7-1982.
The appellant has challenged the order of removal by way of this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also the learned counsel for WAPDA. It is admitted that in the first instance on certain charges, the appellant was suspended from service on 18-2-1981 and a charge-sheet dated 17-2-1981 was served on him on 25-2-1981. On receiving the reply of the appellant, he was reinstated into service on 11-3-1981. Another charge- sheet dated 18-2-1981 was served on the appellant on 25-2-1981. The appellant entered his defence by refuting the charge which was to the effect that in 15 cases, he made bogus or wrong reading.
The Inquiry Officer was appointed who examined the appellant, but did not proceed further till order under section 17(1-A) was passed on 31-7-1982.
3. The learned counsel for respondent has admitted that action under section 17(1-A) was taken against the appellant for recording wrong and bogus readings of meters of different consumers.
The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, successfully explained before us that the readings at S.Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the charge sheet were not the responsibility of the appellant, but that of the Line Superintendent or the S.D.O., because these were the 'average' readings.
4. As regards readings at S.Nos. 6, 8, 12 and 13, these do not relate to the appellant, but had been recorded by some-body else. There remains, only bogus readings at S.Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 14 and 15 pertaining to the appellant.
5. As regards S.No,1, the meter reading in January, 1980 as shown in the record made available for our perusal, is 3499 and progressively goes to 4091 in 4/1980. This was recorded by the appellant.
The meter reading taken by the Line Superintendent on 7-4-1980 shows 3406, meaning thereby that either the meter reading taken by the Line Superintendent was incorrect or the meter had been reversed.
6. About S.No,2, it has been explained that due to smoke of 'tandoor', the appellant committed a clerical error recording the reading as 1200 in June, 1980, whereas the meter reading recorded by the Line Superintendent on 6-7-1980 shows 1024. This is either a clerical error by the appellant or the reversing of the meter. Since, however, we are not in possession of any record on the subject, we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion on this charge.
7. As regards S.No,4, the appellant admits that since the meter was at a higher place, he could not take the correct reading. The fault lies with him which was, however, corrected subsequently. We accept this explanation.
8. As regards S.No,10, the record of the reading has been made available. The said record shows that the reading in the month of February, 1980 was 00057 and progressively went to 00165 in August, 1980. The reading taken by the Line Superintendent on 14-9-1980 shows 00042. It is a clear case of reversing of the meter and the appellant cannot be blamed for that.
9. As regards S.No,14, the appellant admits that though the initial reading had been recorded correctly, but when forwarding the record, he made error.
10. About S.No,15, no definite finding can be given, inasmuch as either the meter had been reversed or the reading recorded by the appellant or the Line Superintendent had been faulty.
11. The above analysis shows that there is reasonable doubt for the culpability of the appellant. He is a young man having commenced his service from 4-8-1978. It is an appropriate case in which the appellant should only be warned for being careless. The extreme action of removing the appellant under section 17(1-A) was not called for.
12. In view of the above circumstances, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of removal of the appellant from service. He is reinstated into service with consequential benefits from the date of removal.