ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P.No.D-529 of 2007

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

19.05.2010.

Mr. Muhammad Saulat Rizvi Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. Javed I. Bukhari Advocate for the Respondents.

Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside showcause notice dated 25.10.2007 issued by the Respondents under the WAPDA EMPLOYEES (RETIREMENT) RULES, 1979.

Briefly, vide notification dated 17.04.2005 directions were given to review the services of WAPDA employees on completion of 20 years service under Wapda Employees(Retirement) Rules, 1979 twice in a calendar year with the objective to eliminate inefficient, corrupt and unwilling employees from time to time from the Department. In consequent thereof, notice was issued to the petitioner containing following allegations:-

“From the perusal of your ACRs file and other connected record, the competent authority has come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest to retire you from service after completion of 20 years of service qualifying for pension and other retirement benefits for the following reasons:-

a) That as many as 18(Eighteen) minor and major penalties, as detailed below, have been imposed upon you, 9 penalties under “The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978” and 9 penalties under “Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000”

· Minor penalty of “Stoppage of two annual increments” was imposed vide office order No.C-2268-74 dated 22.06.1995.

· Minor penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide office order No.C-4000-03 dated 27.04.1996.

· Minor Penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide office order No.C-5931-34 dated 11.04.1997.

· Minor penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide office order NO.C-5935-39 dated 11.04.1997.

· Minor penalty of “stoppage of one increment for one year” was imposed vide office order No.-533-38 dated 24.01.1999.

· Minor penalty of “Stoppage of one increment for one year” was imposed vide office order NO.C-527-32 dated 29.01.1999.

· Major penalty of “Compulsory retirement” was imposed vide office order No.C-28-39 dated 07.01.2002. After appeal re-instated in service and penalty of “Reduction of two stages below for two years” was imposed vide office order No.C-1518-32 dated 02.01.2002.

· Major penalty of “Reduction of two stages below for two years” was imposed vide office order No.C-3594-3604 dated 04.05.2002.

· Minor penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide office order No.C-4580-86 dated 05.06.2002.

· Minor penalty of “Stoppage of one increment for one year” was imposed vide office order No.C-14983-87 dated 08.10.2005.

· Major penalty of “Reduction of one stage below for one year” was imposed vide office order No.C-14973-77 dated 08.10.2005.

· Minor penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide office order No.C-9050-54 dated 22.07.2005.

· Minor penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide offie order No.C-4954-61 dated 19.04.2006.

· Major penalty of “Reduction of one stage below for one year” was imposed vide office order No.C-4962-68 dated 19.04.2006.

· Major penalty of “Reduction of one stage below for one year” was imposed vide office order No.C-7941-47 dated 07.06.2006.

· Major penalty of “Reduction of two stages below for two years” was imposed vide office order No.C-19686-91 dated 20.12.2006.

· Minor penalty of “Censure” was imposed vide office order No.C-19676-81 dated 20.12.2006.

· Minor penalty of “Recovery of Rs.86,662/-“ was imposed vide office order No.C-10316-21 dated 31.05.2007.

b) That you have been recommended twice for suppression by the promotion/selection Board HESCO duly approved by the competent authority.

The Petitioner filed his reply wherein he has asserted that he has not received even showcause notice in some of the penalties imposed on him from time to time. After submitting reply, the petitioner filed the instant petition and this Court vide order dated 10.01.2008 restrained the Respondents from passing final order.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the showcause notice has been incompetently issued by the Chief Engineer as it was supposed to be issued by the appointing Authority which is M.D. WAPDA. It was next contended that the Petitioner could not be proceeded with unless the details of penalties imposed in showcause notice issued are supplied to him.

On the other hand, Mr. Javed I. Bukhari Counsel for the Respondents contends that the showcause notice has been competently issued and since the Petitioner after issuance of showcause notice filed instant petition, therefore, further proceedings could not take place nor reply of the showcause notice be considered.

We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. There is no cavil to the proposition that the services of unwilling and corrupt work force was directed to be removed vide notification dated 17.04.2006 and sine there were as many as 18 major and minor penalties imposed upon the petitioner during his career of 20 years, therefore, the Respondent issued showcause notice to the Petitioner in terms of such notification.. Perusal of the reply of the respondents reflects that the same being evasive as he has not specified penalties which were imposed without a showcause notice, however, at this stage, we would not like to comment on the worth of reply as it is for the Respondents to consider the reply and to act in accordance with law. As to the objection raised by the Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the showcause notice has been issued by incompetent person, suffice is to observe that the appointment letter placed by the petitioner on record reflects that it was issued by Chief Engineer. No case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. At this juncture, Mr. Rizvi states that the Respondents be directed to act in accordance with law. In our opinion every person is expected to act in accordance with law and no observation in this respect is necessary.

The C.P.No.529/2007 stands disposed of.

JUDGE

A.K