Waris Ali (service Appeal)
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Waris Ali (service Appeal) as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,043
- Pages: 14
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
INDEX S. No. 1 2 3 4 5
15 16
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES Memorandum of Appeal. Affidavit Copy of explanation letter. A Reply of explanation letter. B Copies of show cause notice, defence C, D & E reply and office order. Copy of appeal dated 15.6.01. F Copy of rejection letter No. 4793 & G & G/1 its corrected copy. Copy of written report by appellant. H Copy of written requests. I&J Copy of written application. K Memo of addresses. Dispensation Application. Affidavit. Application for exemption of books relied upon. Affidavit. Application for condonation of delay.
17
Affidavit
18
Power of attorney.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
APPELLANT, Dated: __________ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah S/o Haji Abdur Razzaq Shah, Meter Reader, Walayat Abad Sub-Division, MEPCO Ltd. Multan, R/o Gali No. 6, Basti Tariq Abad, Khanewal Road, Multan. ……Appellant VERSUS 1.
WAPDA, through its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore.
2.
MEPCO Ltd., through its Chief Executive, MEPCO Complex, Khanewal Road, Multan.
3.
Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. City Division, Sher Shah Road, Multan.
4.
S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd. Walayatabad Sub-division, Multan. ……Respondents Service Appeal U/s 4 of Services Tribunal Act, 1973. Appeal against orders of respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 (placed at Annex “G”) who has rejected the departmental appeal made on 15.6.01 (placed at Annex “F”) in consequence of major penalty of “bringing to the initial stage of B.P.S.-5 for three years without future effect”, awarded by respondent No. 4, vide his letter No. 106-07 dated 28.5.2001 (copy placed at Annex “E”).
Prayer in Appeal: To set aside the impugned orders of reduction to initial stage of B.P.S.-5 for three years passed by respondent No. 4 and upheld by respondent No. 3 by accepting this Service Appeal and restoring the appellant in B.P.S.-7 with consequential relief.
GROUNDS 1.
That the impugned order dated 28.5.2001 issued by respondent No. 4, proceedings initiated thereunder and order dated 31.3.03 issued by respondent No. 3 are clearly uncalled for and unwarranted by law, having been issued without jurisdiction and without lawful authority, which is also an arbitrary exercise of power not conferred to respondents under the relevant rules.
2.
That the show-cause notice with proposed action i.e. major penalty of “bringing to initial stage of B.P.S.-5” means action which has been provisionally decided after conclusion of facts have been reached against the appellant. There must be first an enquiry, whatsoever its nature against the appellant and some conclusions must be reached. On the basis of those conclusions of enquiry, a provisional punishment must be decided upon and then a notice was to be issued to the appellant to show cause. The appellant has the statutory right of show cause against the proposed action and therefore it is essential even through a second enquiry is necessitated that he should be given a notice after the respondents have decided to take particular action against the appellant. But the respondent No. 4 violated all these formalities and proceeded against the appellant under Rule IV of the E&D Rules, 1978 without recording any reasons.
3.
That where the show cause notice is prescribed against the proposed punishment to be given to the delinquent, the necessary implication is that the servant not merely be asked to state his reply, but as part of his right to show cause notice, the material on account of which the delinquent servant was held guilty should be communicated to him as without such material, he is not placed in a position to disprove it effectively. But the appellant, was not supplied the available documents with respondent No. 4 in clear violation of rules.
4.
That the right of calling defence is an indispensable attribute of a show cause notice. It will be a complete negation of justice to ask a civil servant to show cause against certain charges and permit him only to say that the charges were incorrect, but refuse him to call evidence to prove his assertion i.e. cut out the right of defence from the show cause notice. Those provisions would be rendered wholly illusory if a civil servant is merely given a right of making a representation denying the correctness of the charges on the principles of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard which is clearly intended to protect a civil servant against the loss of his status against a capricious and arbitrary action and therefore, a civil servant is entitled to a full and thorough enquiry into the charges before being deprived of his rights/his status.
5.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that major punishment cannot be awarded without holding regular enquiry.
6.
That formal hearing is a part of reasonable opportunity guaranteed by the constitution. The personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of arguments and the civil servant appearing to persuade the authority by reasonable arguments to accept his point of view. No personal hearing was made by the competent authority in this case before ordering the major punishment of reducing to the initial stage of B.P.S.-5. Respondent No. 4 called the appellant in his office on 31.3.2003 and straight away announced his decision without affording personal hearing to appellant.
7.
That the respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 3 while ordering major penalty and rejecting the departmental appeal did not give cogent reasons in detail and contravened the
General Clauses Act, 1997 as amended by Act No. XI of 1997 section 24-A. 8.
That there was neither any justification nor any reason, which a person of commons sense would applaud for this harsh action ensuing out of suo moto yielded jurisdiction by the respondents without any legal and lawful authority. Apparently, the impugned orders are spring-out of the malafide intention of respondents. The appellant cannot be allowed to be victimized by illegal omission and commission of authority against the basic letter and spirit of law.
B.
Supporting Law Books/case laws relied upon. 1. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 2. WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978. 3. 1980 SCMR 850 4. 2003 PLC (CS) 7 5. 1993 SCMR 603 6. 2000 PLC (CS) 1053 7. 2001 PLC (CS) 644 8. 1998 SCMR 2268 9. 2002 PLC (CS) 128 10.NLR 2003 Service 50 11.PLD 1954 Lhr 299 12.AIR 1961 All-276 13.1993 PLC (CS) 308 14.1990 PLC (CS) 313
C.
Facts: -
1.
That the appellant was employed as Meter Reader in B.P.S-5 under the control of respondents on 25.4.1979. With the passage of time and due to his hard-working with zeal, zest and upto the entire satisfaction of his superiors, he was promoted to Selection Grade in B.P.S.-7 in the year 1987 and has been serving the Department at different Sub-Divisions under Multan Region. Lastly, when he was posted in
Walayatabad Sub-Division, Multan, he was served with an explanation letter under Rule IV of the E&D Rules, 1978, vide No. 849 of 19.2.2001 (Annex “A”) alleging guilty of misconduct on the pretext of reversing the reading of meter A/c No. 5132-00042004. The allegation was absolutely wrong and false. 2.
That the background of issuing this explanation letter and consequent penalty awarded to the appellant is that the respondent No. 4 ordered to charge excess units of electricity from consumers by recording excessive meter readings in order to cover high line losses. The appellant refused to obey such wrong and illegal orders as this malpractice could give good name and appreciation of high-ups to the respondent No. 4, but would have implicated the appellant in a number of cases of bogus readings for which there was no defence for the appellant to escape. Also consumers (public) would have suffered a lot. The respondent No. 4, became inimical towards appellant and threatened for dire consequences but the appellant
did
not
choose
to
join
wrong
practice.
Consequently, explanation letter (Annex “A”) was issued under malafide intention to harm the appellant. It is pertinent to point out that the meter referred in explanation letter was secured in iron anti-theft box, which was duly welded and quite O.K. and there was no chance of reversing reading or theft of energy. This meter was checked by M&T formation on 25.01.01 and appellant had recorded the readings of this meter for 4/2000 to 9/2000. The appellant’s successor Meter Reader had recorded readings for 10/2000 to onward. So, the appellant cannot be held responsible for any offence if committed at all as he had no concern after the change of duty of readings after 9/2000. No adverse report was ever made against the appellant during his tenure, rather the appellant has pointed out the low consumption of consumer in Discrepancy Register in 7/2000 and again submitted a written report to get the meter checked by M&T formation (copy of
report is placed at Annex “H”). Moreover, after change of duty in 6/2000, the consumption of this consumer remained low continuously and there was no rise in consumption during the tenure of the successor meter reader. This is sufficient to prove that this was a false case to involve the appellant under malafide and explanation letter was issued instead of framing charge-sheet, depriving the appellant of his right to disprove the allegation in enquiry proceedings. The appellant could have proved his innocence on the face of record and facts. 3. That the humble appellant replied the explanation letter No. 849 of 19.2.2001, in the absence of the documentary evidence with respondent No. 4, who did not provide the same with explanation letter. (Explanation letter and reply of appellant are placed as Annex “A & B”). 4. That the respondent No. 4 was pleased to pass orders of reducing to
initial
stage
of
B.P.S.-5
vide
his
orders
No.
106-07 dated 28.5.01 depending upon his own sweet will neglecting the given procedure under law. He also failed to give cogent reasons while passing order of major punishment as mentioned above. Copies of show cause notice, defence reply and office order are placed at Annex “C, D & E”). 5. That the appellant made the departmental appeal to respondent No. 3 on 15.6.01 (copy of which is placed at Annex “F”). The same was rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 4793 of 31.3.2003 (copy placed as Annex “G”), which was delivered to the appellant on 31.3.2003. On this, letter office order No. 55-56 dated 24.3.2001 was referred which was absolutely wrong as the appellant had not filed any appeal against the said O/o No. 55-56 of 24.3.2001. On written request of appellant, the respondent No. 4 informed verbally that office order No. 55-56 dated 24.3.2001 has been mentioned erroneously in letter No. 4793 of 31.3.2003. Actually that was with reference to office order No. 106-107 of 28.5.2001, for which the appeal filed by appellant has been rejected by
appellate authority, but did not provide the corrected copy of this important document required for filing the appeal. 5.
That the appellant made written as well as oral requests to respondent No. 4 time and again to provide corrected copy of letter No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 and certified copies of other relevant documents to enable the appellant to file appeal before competent forum, but the respondent No. 4 procrastinated under one pretext or the other for a considerable time and then flatly refused which proves his malice and malafide towards the appellant. (Copy of written requests placed as Annex “I & J”).
6.
That the appellant as a last resort applied for certified copies of the requisite documents to respondent No. 3. Copy of written application is Annex “K”). The respondent No. 3 was kind enough to supply copy of corrected document i.e. letter No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 to appellant on 5.6.2003, but has not supplied certified copies of requisite documents so far. Further delay in waiting for supply of certified copies of documents may be detrimental for the cause of appellant. Hence, this Service Appeal is submitted to this Hon’ble Tribunal for accepting the same by setting aside the impugned orders of reduction to initial stage of BPS-5 and rejection order passed by the respondent No. 3 and restoring the appellant in BPS-7 with consequential relief. Humble Appellant,
Dated: _________ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Application for condonation of delay. Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the appellant has filed the above titled Service Appeal in this Hon’ble Tribunal with all sanguine hope of its success.
2.
That the appellant has filed the departmental appeal on 15.6.01 before the appellate authority i.e. X.E.N. MEPCO Ltd. City Division, Multan, which has been responded vide office order No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003.
3.
That the aforesaid office order had wrong reference of O/O No. 55-56 dated 24.3.2001 passed by respondent No. 4, against which the appellant had not filed any appeal. The error was brought to the notice of respondent No. 4 and requested for necessary correction, which was not carried out, inspite of repeated requests, which lead to doubt that delay and procrastination was intentional/malafide, whereas the appellant intended to avoid any technical flaws in appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
4.
That the appellant approached the respondent No. 3 on 5.6.2003 and requested for correction in the rejection order dated 31.3.2003, so as to enable the appellant to file appeal against the said order in appropriate forum. The respondent No. 3 was kind enough to make the necessary correction, but has not supplied certified copies of the requisite documents on the written request of appellant dated 5.6.2003 (copy is placed at Annex “K”).
5.
That there is no delay in filing appeal after receipt of corrected/uncertified copy of document on 5.6.03.
6.
That this application for condonation of delay is being filed to cover the risk of probable objection of delay, otherwise, the appeal has been filed within reasonable time after receipt of corrected document i.e. rejection order No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 (Annex “G”).
7.
That under Rule 4 (4) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees’ Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1978 and relevant Service Rules, S.D.O. MEPCO Walayatabad Sub-Division, Multan (respondent No. 4) is neither Appointing Authority nor competent authority. Also, X.E.N. MEPCO City Division, Multan (respondent No. 3) is not appellate authority. Order No. 106-07 dated 28.5.2001 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annex “E”) and order No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annex “G”) are without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, coram-non-judice, null and void. No limitation runs against a void order.
8.
That there are bright chances of success of appeal on merits.
9.
That the law favours adjudication on merits by avoiding technical flaws, if any. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the titled appeal may please be accepted and delay adjudged, if any, may kindly be condoned and appeal may be decided on merits in the interest of justice. Humble Appellant,
Dated: _______ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
Reliance: 1. 1988 PLC (CS) 788 2. 1989 PLC (CS) 890 3. 1990 PLC (CS) 313 4. 1999 SCMR 197 5. The Pakistan WAPDA Employees E&D Rules, 1978. 6. RelevantBEFORE Service THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD. Rules of Meter Readers.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Application for exemption of books relied upon.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the appellant has filed the above titled Service Appeal in this Hon’ble Tribunal with all sanguine hope of its success. 2. That the books relied upon are not being attached with the Service Appeal. The same will be provided later on as and when ordered by this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is therefore, humbly prayed that this application may be accepted and the books relied upon may be dispensed with for the time being. Humble Appellant, Dated: _______ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main appeal. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “
” are not readily
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. Humble Appellant, Dated: _______ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Service Appeal U/s 4 of Services Tribunal Act, 1973. AFFIDAVIT of: Waris Ali Shah S/o Haji Abdur Razzaq Shah, Meter Reader, Walayat Abad Sub-Division, MEPCO Ltd. Multan, R/o Gali No. 6, Basti Tariq Abad, Khanewal Road, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Memo of addresses of the parties. Waris Ali Shah S/o Haji Abdur Razzaq Shah, Meter Reader, Walayat Abad Sub-Division, MEPCO Ltd. Multan, R/o Gali No. 6, Basti Tariq Abad, Khanewal Road, Multan. ……Appellant VERSUS 1. WAPDA, through its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore. 2. MEPCO Ltd., through its Chief Executive, MEPCO Complex, Khanewal Road, Multan. 3. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. City Division, Sher Shah Road, Multan. 4. S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd. Walayatabad Sub-division, Multan. ……Respondents
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
INDEX S. No. 1 2 3 4 5
15 16
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES Memorandum of Appeal. Affidavit Copy of explanation letter. A Reply of explanation letter. B Copies of show cause notice, defence C, D & E reply and office order. Copy of appeal dated 15.6.01. F Copy of rejection letter No. 4793 & G & G/1 its corrected copy. Copy of written report by appellant. H Copy of written requests. I&J Copy of written application. K Memo of addresses. Dispensation Application. Affidavit. Application for exemption of books relied upon. Affidavit. Application for condonation of delay.
17
Affidavit
18
Power of attorney.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
APPELLANT, Dated: __________ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah S/o Haji Abdur Razzaq Shah, Meter Reader, Walayat Abad Sub-Division, MEPCO Ltd. Multan, R/o Gali No. 6, Basti Tariq Abad, Khanewal Road, Multan. ……Appellant VERSUS 1.
WAPDA, through its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore.
2.
MEPCO Ltd., through its Chief Executive, MEPCO Complex, Khanewal Road, Multan.
3.
Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. City Division, Sher Shah Road, Multan.
4.
S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd. Walayatabad Sub-division, Multan. ……Respondents Service Appeal U/s 4 of Services Tribunal Act, 1973. Appeal against orders of respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 (placed at Annex “G”) who has rejected the departmental appeal made on 15.6.01 (placed at Annex “F”) in consequence of major penalty of “bringing to the initial stage of B.P.S.-5 for three years without future effect”, awarded by respondent No. 4, vide his letter No. 106-07 dated 28.5.2001 (copy placed at Annex “E”).
Prayer in Appeal: To set aside the impugned orders of reduction to initial stage of B.P.S.-5 for three years passed by respondent No. 4 and upheld by respondent No. 3 by accepting this Service Appeal and restoring the appellant in B.P.S.-7 with consequential relief.
GROUNDS 1.
That the impugned order dated 28.5.2001 issued by respondent No. 4, proceedings initiated thereunder and order dated 31.3.03 issued by respondent No. 3 are clearly uncalled for and unwarranted by law, having been issued without jurisdiction and without lawful authority, which is also an arbitrary exercise of power not conferred to respondents under the relevant rules.
2.
That the show-cause notice with proposed action i.e. major penalty of “bringing to initial stage of B.P.S.-5” means action which has been provisionally decided after conclusion of facts have been reached against the appellant. There must be first an enquiry, whatsoever its nature against the appellant and some conclusions must be reached. On the basis of those conclusions of enquiry, a provisional punishment must be decided upon and then a notice was to be issued to the appellant to show cause. The appellant has the statutory right of show cause against the proposed action and therefore it is essential even through a second enquiry is necessitated that he should be given a notice after the respondents have decided to take particular action against the appellant. But the respondent No. 4 violated all these formalities and proceeded against the appellant under Rule IV of the E&D Rules, 1978 without recording any reasons.
3.
That where the show cause notice is prescribed against the proposed punishment to be given to the delinquent, the necessary implication is that the servant not merely be asked to state his reply, but as part of his right to show cause notice, the material on account of which the delinquent servant was held guilty should be communicated to him as without such material, he is not placed in a position to disprove it effectively. But the appellant, was not supplied the available documents with respondent No. 4 in clear violation of rules.
4.
That the right of calling defence is an indispensable attribute of a show cause notice. It will be a complete negation of justice to ask a civil servant to show cause against certain charges and permit him only to say that the charges were incorrect, but refuse him to call evidence to prove his assertion i.e. cut out the right of defence from the show cause notice. Those provisions would be rendered wholly illusory if a civil servant is merely given a right of making a representation denying the correctness of the charges on the principles of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard which is clearly intended to protect a civil servant against the loss of his status against a capricious and arbitrary action and therefore, a civil servant is entitled to a full and thorough enquiry into the charges before being deprived of his rights/his status.
5.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that major punishment cannot be awarded without holding regular enquiry.
6.
That formal hearing is a part of reasonable opportunity guaranteed by the constitution. The personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of arguments and the civil servant appearing to persuade the authority by reasonable arguments to accept his point of view. No personal hearing was made by the competent authority in this case before ordering the major punishment of reducing to the initial stage of B.P.S.-5. Respondent No. 4 called the appellant in his office on 31.3.2003 and straight away announced his decision without affording personal hearing to appellant.
7.
That the respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 3 while ordering major penalty and rejecting the departmental appeal did not give cogent reasons in detail and contravened the
General Clauses Act, 1997 as amended by Act No. XI of 1997 section 24-A. 8.
That there was neither any justification nor any reason, which a person of commons sense would applaud for this harsh action ensuing out of suo moto yielded jurisdiction by the respondents without any legal and lawful authority. Apparently, the impugned orders are spring-out of the malafide intention of respondents. The appellant cannot be allowed to be victimized by illegal omission and commission of authority against the basic letter and spirit of law.
B.
Supporting Law Books/case laws relied upon. 1. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 2. WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978. 3. 1980 SCMR 850 4. 2003 PLC (CS) 7 5. 1993 SCMR 603 6. 2000 PLC (CS) 1053 7. 2001 PLC (CS) 644 8. 1998 SCMR 2268 9. 2002 PLC (CS) 128 10.NLR 2003 Service 50 11.PLD 1954 Lhr 299 12.AIR 1961 All-276 13.1993 PLC (CS) 308 14.1990 PLC (CS) 313
C.
Facts: -
1.
That the appellant was employed as Meter Reader in B.P.S-5 under the control of respondents on 25.4.1979. With the passage of time and due to his hard-working with zeal, zest and upto the entire satisfaction of his superiors, he was promoted to Selection Grade in B.P.S.-7 in the year 1987 and has been serving the Department at different Sub-Divisions under Multan Region. Lastly, when he was posted in
Walayatabad Sub-Division, Multan, he was served with an explanation letter under Rule IV of the E&D Rules, 1978, vide No. 849 of 19.2.2001 (Annex “A”) alleging guilty of misconduct on the pretext of reversing the reading of meter A/c No. 5132-00042004. The allegation was absolutely wrong and false. 2.
That the background of issuing this explanation letter and consequent penalty awarded to the appellant is that the respondent No. 4 ordered to charge excess units of electricity from consumers by recording excessive meter readings in order to cover high line losses. The appellant refused to obey such wrong and illegal orders as this malpractice could give good name and appreciation of high-ups to the respondent No. 4, but would have implicated the appellant in a number of cases of bogus readings for which there was no defence for the appellant to escape. Also consumers (public) would have suffered a lot. The respondent No. 4, became inimical towards appellant and threatened for dire consequences but the appellant
did
not
choose
to
join
wrong
practice.
Consequently, explanation letter (Annex “A”) was issued under malafide intention to harm the appellant. It is pertinent to point out that the meter referred in explanation letter was secured in iron anti-theft box, which was duly welded and quite O.K. and there was no chance of reversing reading or theft of energy. This meter was checked by M&T formation on 25.01.01 and appellant had recorded the readings of this meter for 4/2000 to 9/2000. The appellant’s successor Meter Reader had recorded readings for 10/2000 to onward. So, the appellant cannot be held responsible for any offence if committed at all as he had no concern after the change of duty of readings after 9/2000. No adverse report was ever made against the appellant during his tenure, rather the appellant has pointed out the low consumption of consumer in Discrepancy Register in 7/2000 and again submitted a written report to get the meter checked by M&T formation (copy of
report is placed at Annex “H”). Moreover, after change of duty in 6/2000, the consumption of this consumer remained low continuously and there was no rise in consumption during the tenure of the successor meter reader. This is sufficient to prove that this was a false case to involve the appellant under malafide and explanation letter was issued instead of framing charge-sheet, depriving the appellant of his right to disprove the allegation in enquiry proceedings. The appellant could have proved his innocence on the face of record and facts. 3. That the humble appellant replied the explanation letter No. 849 of 19.2.2001, in the absence of the documentary evidence with respondent No. 4, who did not provide the same with explanation letter. (Explanation letter and reply of appellant are placed as Annex “A & B”). 4. That the respondent No. 4 was pleased to pass orders of reducing to
initial
stage
of
B.P.S.-5
vide
his
orders
No.
106-07 dated 28.5.01 depending upon his own sweet will neglecting the given procedure under law. He also failed to give cogent reasons while passing order of major punishment as mentioned above. Copies of show cause notice, defence reply and office order are placed at Annex “C, D & E”). 5. That the appellant made the departmental appeal to respondent No. 3 on 15.6.01 (copy of which is placed at Annex “F”). The same was rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 4793 of 31.3.2003 (copy placed as Annex “G”), which was delivered to the appellant on 31.3.2003. On this, letter office order No. 55-56 dated 24.3.2001 was referred which was absolutely wrong as the appellant had not filed any appeal against the said O/o No. 55-56 of 24.3.2001. On written request of appellant, the respondent No. 4 informed verbally that office order No. 55-56 dated 24.3.2001 has been mentioned erroneously in letter No. 4793 of 31.3.2003. Actually that was with reference to office order No. 106-107 of 28.5.2001, for which the appeal filed by appellant has been rejected by
appellate authority, but did not provide the corrected copy of this important document required for filing the appeal. 5.
That the appellant made written as well as oral requests to respondent No. 4 time and again to provide corrected copy of letter No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 and certified copies of other relevant documents to enable the appellant to file appeal before competent forum, but the respondent No. 4 procrastinated under one pretext or the other for a considerable time and then flatly refused which proves his malice and malafide towards the appellant. (Copy of written requests placed as Annex “I & J”).
6.
That the appellant as a last resort applied for certified copies of the requisite documents to respondent No. 3. Copy of written application is Annex “K”). The respondent No. 3 was kind enough to supply copy of corrected document i.e. letter No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 to appellant on 5.6.2003, but has not supplied certified copies of requisite documents so far. Further delay in waiting for supply of certified copies of documents may be detrimental for the cause of appellant. Hence, this Service Appeal is submitted to this Hon’ble Tribunal for accepting the same by setting aside the impugned orders of reduction to initial stage of BPS-5 and rejection order passed by the respondent No. 3 and restoring the appellant in BPS-7 with consequential relief. Humble Appellant,
Dated: _________ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Application for condonation of delay. Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the appellant has filed the above titled Service Appeal in this Hon’ble Tribunal with all sanguine hope of its success.
2.
That the appellant has filed the departmental appeal on 15.6.01 before the appellate authority i.e. X.E.N. MEPCO Ltd. City Division, Multan, which has been responded vide office order No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003.
3.
That the aforesaid office order had wrong reference of O/O No. 55-56 dated 24.3.2001 passed by respondent No. 4, against which the appellant had not filed any appeal. The error was brought to the notice of respondent No. 4 and requested for necessary correction, which was not carried out, inspite of repeated requests, which lead to doubt that delay and procrastination was intentional/malafide, whereas the appellant intended to avoid any technical flaws in appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
4.
That the appellant approached the respondent No. 3 on 5.6.2003 and requested for correction in the rejection order dated 31.3.2003, so as to enable the appellant to file appeal against the said order in appropriate forum. The respondent No. 3 was kind enough to make the necessary correction, but has not supplied certified copies of the requisite documents on the written request of appellant dated 5.6.2003 (copy is placed at Annex “K”).
5.
That there is no delay in filing appeal after receipt of corrected/uncertified copy of document on 5.6.03.
6.
That this application for condonation of delay is being filed to cover the risk of probable objection of delay, otherwise, the appeal has been filed within reasonable time after receipt of corrected document i.e. rejection order No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 (Annex “G”).
7.
That under Rule 4 (4) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees’ Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1978 and relevant Service Rules, S.D.O. MEPCO Walayatabad Sub-Division, Multan (respondent No. 4) is neither Appointing Authority nor competent authority. Also, X.E.N. MEPCO City Division, Multan (respondent No. 3) is not appellate authority. Order No. 106-07 dated 28.5.2001 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annex “E”) and order No. 4793 dated 31.3.2003 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annex “G”) are without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, coram-non-judice, null and void. No limitation runs against a void order.
8.
That there are bright chances of success of appeal on merits.
9.
That the law favours adjudication on merits by avoiding technical flaws, if any. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the titled appeal may please be accepted and delay adjudged, if any, may kindly be condoned and appeal may be decided on merits in the interest of justice. Humble Appellant,
Dated: _______ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
Reliance: 1. 1988 PLC (CS) 788 2. 1989 PLC (CS) 890 3. 1990 PLC (CS) 313 4. 1999 SCMR 197 5. The Pakistan WAPDA Employees E&D Rules, 1978. 6. RelevantBEFORE Service THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD. Rules of Meter Readers.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Application for exemption of books relied upon.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the appellant has filed the above titled Service Appeal in this Hon’ble Tribunal with all sanguine hope of its success. 2. That the books relied upon are not being attached with the Service Appeal. The same will be provided later on as and when ordered by this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is therefore, humbly prayed that this application may be accepted and the books relied upon may be dispensed with for the time being. Humble Appellant, Dated: _______ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main appeal. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “
” are not readily
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. Humble Appellant, Dated: _______ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Service Appeal U/s 4 of Services Tribunal Act, 1973. AFFIDAVIT of: Waris Ali Shah S/o Haji Abdur Razzaq Shah, Meter Reader, Walayat Abad Sub-Division, MEPCO Ltd. Multan, R/o Gali No. 6, Basti Tariq Abad, Khanewal Road, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.
Service Appeal No. ___________/2003 Waris Ali Shah
VS
MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.
Memo of addresses of the parties. Waris Ali Shah S/o Haji Abdur Razzaq Shah, Meter Reader, Walayat Abad Sub-Division, MEPCO Ltd. Multan, R/o Gali No. 6, Basti Tariq Abad, Khanewal Road, Multan. ……Appellant VERSUS 1. WAPDA, through its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore. 2. MEPCO Ltd., through its Chief Executive, MEPCO Complex, Khanewal Road, Multan. 3. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. City Division, Sher Shah Road, Multan. 4. S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd. Walayatabad Sub-division, Multan. ……Respondents
Related Documents
Waris Ali (service Appeal)
November 2019 3
Waris
November 2019 19
Hukum Waris
April 2020 21
Appeal
October 2019 42
Bagi Waris
June 2020 11