' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 14-10-1996 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No,54(P) of 1996 filed.By the petitioner challenging order of his termination from service issued on 13th April.
1996.
2. Facts briefly stated are, that petitioner was appointed as Mali at Khuram Garhi Power Station of WAPDA on 13-3-1996 and placed under probation for a period of one year. His services were, however, terminated by Chief Engineer (Hydel) North, WAPDA, Warsak, vide Order No,241 dated 13- 4-1996 without assigning specific reasons. Representation filed before next higher authority being Managing Director (Generation) WAPDA, Lahore was not decided. However, in pursuance of said representation there was correspondence between the Chief Engineer (Hydel) WAPDA, Warsak and Managing Director, which suggested that brother namely Amirullah was factually appointed on merits and not against "employees' son quota". Since no reply was received from competent Authority, therefore, after expiry of ninety (90) days from afore-referred representation, the petitioner instituted Service Appeal No,54(P) of 1996 before Federal. Service Tribunal on 3-9-1996, which was eventually dismissed in limine on 14-10-1996, and assailed through present petition for 'leave to appeal. Operative portion of impugned judgment is reproduced below:- "(3). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We are afraid, we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel as nothing has been mentioned in the impugned order that the appellant's services were terminated, as he was appointed in excess of the quota reserved for the children of the employees of the WAPDA nor he could establish that his termination was made illegally. Mere conjectures and surmises that his termination was perhaps made due to the fact that he was employed over and above the quota reserved for the children of the employees of the said Authority are of no avail to him. The appellant has also failed to prove mala fide and in the absence of any proof, we cannot rely upon his allegation. Even otherwise, the WAPDA is fully competent to dispense with the services of an employee, during the probationary period and that too without assigning any reasons. We, therefore, find no substance in the submissions of the appellant's counsel and accordingly dismiss the present appeal in limine."
3. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, for the petitioner and Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, for respondents addressed the arguments.
4. It is case of petitioner that his brother was appointed as Assistant Line Man, WAPDA, on the basis of merit, therefore,. Order of his termination from service by departmental authorities merely on the probability that quota might have been utilized by petitioner is based on total misconception and misinformation.
5. Perusal of material on record discloses that petitioner had been' appointed as Mali against "quota of employees' son" Therefore, in the event of any doubt regarding utilization of said benefit by his brother it was obligatory for the department to have carried out through enquiry for ascertaining correct factual position. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, for respondents from the material on record could not show real cause which led to termination of petitioner's service. Documents placed on the file of this Court manifestly show that petitioner's termination was relatable to facility of quota permissible to a member of family for seeking employment in the department if such benefit has not been availed earlier. Thus in order to arrive at correct conclusions it was necessary that respondents should have produced complete details before the Tribunal. Needless to observe that public functionaries are normally expected to furnish entire material before judicial or quasi judicial forums so that legal rights of aggrieved person could be fairly resolved and adjudicated.
' For the above reasons we are inclined to convert this petition into appeal and by setting aside the impugned judgment remand the case to Federal Service Tribunal for deciding .Afresh Service Appeal No,54(P) of 1996 after allowing impleadment of new incumbent and providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned.