' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIOUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 31-1-1993.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally for committing misconduct and after completion of all the formalities, major penalty of reducing him to the lowest stage in his time-scale for a period of two years was imposed by the General Manager (Planning) WAPDA on 27-2-1984. The petitioner addressed a departmental appeal and during pendency of the appeal a notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 12 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, proposing to reconsider the punishment imposed on the petitioner. A show-cause notice was, accordingly, issued to the petitioner and the Authority after hearing the petitioner by order dated 27-6-1984 dismissed him from service. The dismissal order of the petitioner reads as follows:- "After considering the Defence Reply dated 25-4-1984 of Ch. Aftab Ahmed, Senior Engineer (O&M Section), Office of General Manager and Project Director, Tarbela Dam Project, WAPDA, Tarbela, to the Notice served upon him under No, GM(Admn)/AD(Rev.)/05005/129/856, dated 13-5-1984, the Authority in exercise of powers conferred on it under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 has decided to impose penalty of dismissal from service, as defined in the aforesaid rules upon Ch. Aftab Ahmed, Senior Engineer.
' Ch. Aftab Ahmed, Senior Engineer, is therefore, hereby, dismissed from service with immediate effect."
3. The Federal Service Tribunal refused to interfere with the above order of dismissal from service on the ground that there was no irregularity in enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondent.
4. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the learned Service Tribunal failed to consider that the order dated 27-6-1984 purported to have been passed by the authority under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1978 was not sustainable as it did not disclose any reason for enhancement of the punishment. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of WAPDA v. Muhammad Riaz Butt (1993 SCM R 1134). The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.