' MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).---This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14-5-1994 whereby the appellant Muhammad Ramzan, ex-Meter Reader was compulsorily retired from service by the competent authority under rule 2(3) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D)
Rules, 1978.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant while serving as Meter Reader, Rehmanpura, Sub- Division was' served with an explanation letter/show-cause notice on the ground that he failed to prepare Kalamzoo Cards in respect of various consumers on 18-10-1993 to which he replied on 20- 10-1993. After that he was served with a final show-cause notice dated 27-1-1994. His reply to the final show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory by the competent authority on account of which he was compulsorily retired from service vide impugned order dated 14-5-1994. He filed a departmental appeal which was rejected on 6-7-1994. He then came to the Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 13-7-1994 with the prayer that the appeal may kindly be accepted and impugned orders dated 14-5-1994 and 6-7-1994 may be set aside and appellant may be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978 are not statutory rules and, therefore, the action taken under these rules against the appellant is illegal and unjust. He further submitted that Wapda is a statutory functionary and it runs its own authority and not under the authority of Provincial or Central Governments, hence the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the appellant. No inquiry was held under the Standing Orders Ordinance. The allegations were not proved against the appellant during the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be accepted and the impugned order dated 14-5-1994 may be set aside in the interest of justice.
4. On the other hand the respondents plea is that the appellant is a Wapda employee and Wapda employees are governed under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978. The next contention is that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to the appellant being a civil servant. The allegations against the appellant were proved and, therefore, it was not considered necessary to hold an inquiry into the matter. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the appellant is fair and in accordance with law.
5. We have heard both the parties and also- perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Asmat Kamal has pointed out that since the WAPDA Rules, 1973 are not statutory hence all action under that rules against the appellant are void. His contention is that since WAPDA is a statutory functionary and it runs its own authority and not under the authority of Provincial or Federal Government so the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employees (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the appellant with full force. The learned counsel for the appellant on one side had challenged the jurisdiction of this Tiibunal that the appellant not being a civil servant is governed by the said rules. But on the other hand the learned counsel has accepted the fact that the appellant is a civil servant as he himself admitted in para. 4(i) of the memo of appeal that he is a civil servant by virtue of section 17 of Pakistan WAPDA Act and therefore he is governed under the WAPDA (E & D ) Rules, 1978 and procedure as laid down under rule 5(iv) of the said rules.
6. Our attention has also been drawn to the latest decision of the Supreme Court, dated 28th March, 1994, wherein a very crucial point with regard to WAPDA (E & D) Rules has been discussed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court as under:- "It will be noticed that section 28 ibid, is of a general nature while section 18 ibid deals specifically with the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Authority. As the rules regulating the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, they relate to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Authority and as such it is the Authority which is competent to make or amend them under section 18, ibid. Thus, the amendment by the Authority in rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978 cannot be assailed on the ground of competency. The petition is therefore dismissed."
In view of the above decision WAPDA (E & D) Rules have a legal force and all actions under the (E & D) Rules cannot be assailed on the ground of competency and thus the appellant being a civil servant will be governed under WAPDA (E & D) Rules.
7. As regards the merits of the case, the appellant has himself admitted in his departmental appeal which" {{URDU TEXT}} ' shows that he did have some ulterior motives for not completing Kalamzoo Cards and keeping them blank and also the allegations were proved against the appellant during the enquiry proceedings.
8. We have also noticed that in the past too the appellant was given a major penalty of reduction in time scale by three stages down for a period of two years and despite this punishment he did not improve himself. We feel that due to irresponsible behaviour of certain WAPDA employees, the Authority is running into a heavy line losses on account of pilferage of electricity and illegal connections etc. As the employees involved escape from punishment due to lacuna in the disciplinary proceedings etc. And thus the element of corruption is increasing day by day. In, view of the above discussion we are of the view that the appellant was rightly awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and we, therefore, see no merits in the appeal, uphold the penalty awarded to the appellant and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.