' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Appeals Nos.2 and 3 of 1999, as questions of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. These appeals by leave of the Court are directed against the judgment dated 16-7-1998 of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeals filed by the appellants against the order of the WAPDA for their removal from service under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 have been dismissed.
3. The appellants who were employee of the WAPDA were removed from service under section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 after issuing them show-cause notice containing serious charges.
After receiving reply filed by the appellants, the authority passed order for their removal from service on 6-8-1997 which was challenged before the Service Tribunal in appeals which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 16-7-1998.
4. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in a case where the WAPDA employee was sought to be removed from service on the basis of serious charges carrying stigma, recourse to the provisions of section 17(1A) of the WAPDA Act could be made or the Authority was required to proceed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and if the charges are such which required evidence, constitute an Inquiry Committee and proceed in accordance with law. This controversy has been set at rest in the cases of WAPDA and others v. Sikandar Ali Abro and others (1998 SCM R 137) and Aleem Jaffar, Ex-Line Superintendent, WAPDA, Lahore v. WAPDA through its Chairman, Lahore and 2 others (1998 SCM R 1445) by this Court in which it has been held that in case the WAPDA employee was sought to be removed from service on account of serious charges carrying stigma, provisions of section 17(1A) of the Act could not be invoked and he should be proceeded against in accordance with the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, though for the purposes of simple termination of employment of such an employee, the said provisions could be invoked.
5. In view of the principle laid down by this Court, neither the Act of the WAPDA for the removal of the appellant from service nor the judgment of the Service Tribunal impugned in these appeals are sustainable.
6. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are accepted, the judgment dated 16-7-1998 impugned in both the appeals passed by the Service Tribunal and the order of the Authority dated 6-8-1997 for the removal of the appellants from service are hereby set aside. The appellants were suspended from service on 3-12-1996 and show-cause notice was issued on 28-12-1996 and if the WAPDA desires to proceed against the appellants under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, it may do so and the position obtaining at the time of issuance of the show-cause notice would continue till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings unless the order of suspension is earlier withdrawn.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.