HYDERABAD: Notices issued to Wapda, Hesco authorities
By Our Correspondent
HYDERABAD, Sept 29: Sindh High Court Hyderabad circuit bench here on Saturday issued notices to Wapda, member (power)/managing director Wapda and chief executive officer Hyderabad Electric Supply Company on a petition filed by a junior engineer/sub-divisional officer, Syed Mohammad Abbas Shah.
The petitioner said that he was appointed on Nov 21, 1981, and then he was promoted as executive engineer in 1996. This post was renamed as deputy manager after fragmentation of Wapda into companies including respondent Hesco. He said that lastly he was posted as deputy manager construction division-I Hesco with effect from Sept 17, 2004.
He further said that suddenly he was served with a show cause notice under Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance 2000, along with statement of allegations whereby seven allegations were levelled against him.
The said notice was fabricated, vague and unfounded and designed with ulterior motive was replied by him, he claimed.
He said that it was specifically replied that allegations related to tenure of his predecessors as allegations mentioned at serial No. i, ii, iii, iv and vi were related to period between January 28, 2004, to June 30, 2004, whereas he was posted there in Sept, 2004.
He said that as far as allegation No.-vii was concerned the reason behind non recovery of un-utilised material from the contractor was that there were many problems such as right of way, non-cooperation of consumers, limited shutdowns not arranged by Hesco to carry out the work and shortage of material at Hesco store.
For all this attention of high-ups was drawn and guidance was sought but to no avail.
He said that the material so recovered by petitioner was in safe custody of contractor at his camp store at Site and he had not caused any loss to Wapda/Hesco.
He claimed ulterior motives of CEO Hesco is very much established from the fact that allegation No.-v was also unfounded because it is mentioned, if it is true, in the allegation that he had recovered material lying in custody of contractor by conducting raid for which he should have been given appreciation instead of show cause notice.
He said that without considering his reply to notice, without any inquiry, without final show cause and without affording personal hearing an order dated June 29, 2006, was passed by the chief executive imposing major penalty of “reduction to three stages below in time scale for a period of two years”.
He said that his appeal had been rejected by managing director Wapda without any speaking order and penalty impugned was upheld.
He said that he was still posted at same position and if he was incompetent and inefficient in his duties where was the logic behind in keeping him posed in same division.
He prayed the court to set aside penalty imposed on him and reinstate him with consequential benefits as the order is illegal and mala fide.
