BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL,

ISLAMABAD.

Service Appeal No. ___________/2003

Waris Ali Shah VS MEPCO (WAPDA) etc.

INDEX
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES
1 Memorandum of Appeal.
2 Affidavit
3 Copy of explanation letter. A
4 Reply of explanation letter. B
5 Copies of show cause notice, defence C, D & E
reply and office order.
6 Copy of appeal dated 15.6.01. F
7 Copy of rejection letter No. 4793 & G & G/1
its corrected copy.
8 Copy of written report by appellant. H
9 Copy of written requests. I&J
10 Copy of written application. K
11 Memo of addresses.
12 Dispensation Application.
13 Affidavit.
14 Application for exemption of books
relied upon.
15 Affidavit.
16 Application for condonation of delay.
17 Affidavit
18 Power of attorney.

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 up-
held 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: -
Reliance: - Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem,
1. 1988 PLC (CS) 788 Advocate High Court,
2. 1989 PLC (CS) 890 28-District Courts, Multan.
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,
Rules of Meter ISLAMABAD.
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