MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Promotion — 2021 PLC(CS) 828 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN VS PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Promotion---Expiry of penalty period---After the period of penalty of an official had expired, the same did not operate as an impediment in his future prospects of promotion if otherwise due. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 828 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN VS PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Rr. 3(d), 38 & 39 & appendix-I, Sr. No. 12---Branch manager of a bank---Negligence and dereliction of duty --- Charge sheet, issuance of---authorized officer---Perusal of the appendix-I to the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules, 1973 ('Rules, 1973') revealed that delegation of powers in respect of issuance of show cause notices had been mentioned at Sr. No. 12 thereof---In terms of the said item, the power to issue show cause notice to all categories except (i)(a),(b) and (c) mentioned therein were delegated to Deputy Managing Director, Head of administration Department, Head Office, Principal Offices and Senior Regional Managers---In the present case, the show cause notice was issued by Executive Vice President/Divisional Head, Head Office, therefore it would appear that the show cause notice to the appellant had prima facie been issued by a competent authority---Power conferred through Rules, 1973 was rightly exercised by the Executive Vice President and the objection of the appellant in such regard was misconceived---appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 828 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN VS PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Branch manager of (National) Bank---Negligence and dereliction of duty---Penalty of demotion to one lower grade for a period of three years---Appellant being Branch Manager was responsible to keep an eye on the activities in his Branch relating to its business---In view of his senior and supervisory position, it was his responsibility and duty to supervise, exercise, control and keeping a vigilant eye on each and every aspect of business and services provided by different sections of the Branch; he was not only required to be vigilant but to have direct and first-hand knowledge and maintain supervision of all activities and the manner in which such activities were being conducted---Admittedly, fraud was committed in the Branch and in the opinion of the inquiry officer, lack of vigilance for long periods of time and failure of the appellant to put systems in place and maintaining the relevant registers perpetrated and perpetuated continuous fraud for almost four years---Appellant consciously and deliberately covered up the fraud and thereby facilitated commission of such fraud which resulted in misappropriation of substantial sums of money at the cost of the exchequer---No explanation was available on the record as to why despite being intimated by a whistleblower and others including surprise audits the appellant remained complacent, failed to take any action and steps to ensure that the delinquents were brought to book by way of appropriate action in accordance with law and that continuation of the fraud and misappropriation of public money was stopped---Instead, the appellant pressurized the whistleblower to remain silent and ultimately removed him from the pension payment section and failed to take any action despite identification of fraud and misappropriation of funds from the pension account during surprise audits---Further the appellant failed to inform the Regional Management, his immediate superior authority about the delinquency of his subordinate staff---On the contrary, he made active efforts to cover up and hide their activities and let embezzlement continue unabated for about four years---Such failure by the appellant emboldened those who were misappropriating funds to continue their activities for years on end---Appellant was provided all relevant documents required by him in order to build his defence and he was also given, an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who appeared against him---Appellant also signed the inquiry proceedings confirming the fact that he was provided all due process rights for his defence---Penalty imposed on the appellant was proportionate to the gravity of his offence---Besides Bank had made a statement before the High Court to the effect that the penalty imposed on the appellant was for a limited period of three years and that he shall be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules by the competent authorities on expiry of the said period---Appeal was dismissed.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Promotion — 2021 PLC(CS) 828 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLC