RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The appellant, Abdul Hamid had been working as Assistant Lineman in WAPDA and he had been served with a final show-cause notice on 11-8-1992 on the complaint that, he had written letters to the senior officers i.e. To Superintending Engineer and Chairman, WAPDA against 'the frauds and likely corruption cases of his immediate officers. But on inquiry the appellant failed to prove the allegations he had made against his senior officers.
2. The learned counsel had stated that after following the proper procedure, the respondent Department had dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 25-8-1992. He had made a representation on 22-9-1992, but it had not been acceded to. The learned counsel had brought out at Bar that the appellant was a very honest official and he had made allegations about bogus claims of TA/DA bills being charged by the senior officers and also about one burnt meter after it had given/consumed over 30,000 units of electricity to a favorite customer of XEN Mian Yaseen. But the meter and the record had been burnt after the inquiry proceedings, there was no proof of such a big consumption of electricity afforded to a favourite client of the senior officer. He had submitted that it was a matter of concern that the appellant had made allegations against the S.E.
And XEN who had dismissed him from service vide order dated 25-8-1992. As far as fair play and justice demanded; the XEN, although being competent authority, should have not issued dismissal order of the appellant, because he himself had been accused of wastage/unauthorised sale of over 30,000 units of electricity to a favourite client for which no revenue was earned and WAPDA suffered a heavy loss, but the order should have been issued by a non-accused senior officer. He added that this was an order of victimisation and mala fide action by the XEN Mian Yaseen who himself was involved in the corruption cases. He, therefore, had prayed that the order of dismissal be. Set aside and appellant reinstated in service with back benefits.
3. The learned counsel and representative of the respondent Department had stated that it was the habit of the appellant to write a letter of allegations against senior officers and send it to the President of Pakistan and Chairman, WAPDA. But on inquiry the complaint did not deny whether the XEN Vehari (Mian Yaseen) had fixed meter unauthorisedly for a favourite client and sold him over 30,000 units of electricity in order to make money for himself. He said that he did not know about such cases, but even he could not refute the charges. Regarding bogus TA/DA bills being claimed by the officials, both the learned counsel and representative of the Department were silent and it seemed that this was a general practice of the senior officials to make such TA/DA bills in order to cover unauthorised journeys and misuse of WAPDA vehicles. The appellant had also stated categorically that he had been working in the field and during his service of 4-1/2 years as ALM, it was on record, that he had never claimed and TA/DA bill. This was confirmed by the departmental representative.
4. Under the aforementioned circumstances and after hearing the parties, we find that dismissal of the appellant from service has been done through victimisation and mala fides of the senior officers, particularly the XEN Mian Yaseen against whom he had made the allegations of unauthorised sale of over 3oo00 units of electricity to a favourite client. He, although being the competent authority should have not dismissed the appellant from service on such a complaint, but instead have referred the case to the senior officer for action. We, therefore, find that there was an element of truth in the complaint made by the appellant. But neither the matter was investigated properly, nor the appellant was mated in the inquiry proceedings, nor the record of the burnt meter was made available for inquiry and similar situation was obtainable from TA/DA claims. However, the appellant has acted beyond his jurisdiction to bring cases of corruption, misuse of vehicles and bogus TA/DA claims of the senior officers without ample proof. But the punishment of dismissal from service was too excessive to justify the quantum of his misconduct and guilt, when nothing had been done against the senior officers who had sold huge units of electricity unauthorisedly to their favourite clients to earn illegitimate money. We, therefore, partially accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of dismissal, reinstate the appellant into service with all back benefits w.e.f. The date of such dismissal and modify the punishment to that of stoppage of his promotion for one year. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.