1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the WAPDA, against the acceptance of the service appeals of the two respondents in these two petitions, by the Federal Service Tribunal; whereby their removal from service was held illegal and has been set aside.
2. ' Learned counsel stated that the respondents were exonerated by the Executive Engineer at the initial stage. However, in exercise of suo motu powers under clause 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, the WAPDA "Authority" examined their cases, set aside the orders of exonerations and passed instead orders of removal.
3. ' The Tribunal while accepting the respondents' appeals made the following observations:- "Surprisingly, reasons for reversing the order of the Superintending Engineer exonerating the appellant were not recorded for imposing the penalty of removal from service. Rule 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978 does give power to the Authority to revise an order passed by the subordinate authority but it does not confer arbitrary power on the Authority to revise or reverse an order of the subordinate authority without mentioning the reasons. The impugned order does not indicate whether the report of the inquiry officer was considered while reversing the order of the Superintending Engineer. We are of the opinion that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and cannot be maintained."
4. ' Learned counsel tried to show that the entire file relating to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the "Authority" was before the Tribunal. It contained the noting and recording of opinions and decision by the "Authority" from time to time. Accordingly the short office orders reproduced in the impugned judgment, should not have been read in isolation of what the file contained. If they would have been read with the Office Orders, the decision of the Tribunal would have been different.
5. After hearing the learned counsel in support of his contention we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine; whether, in case the observations made by the Tribunal are upheld in the context that the "Authority" committed a technical error in not repeating the material contained in the files in the orders themselves, would it not have been necessary or at least proper for the Tribunal to remand the case to the "Authority" for fresh decision and/or re-writing of proper judgment. Order accordingly.
6. ' Appeals shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal.