MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN vs The NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN S — 2024 PLC(CS) 1507 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN VS The NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN S.11---National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021, R.2---Re-instatement in service with back benefits---Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service---Prosecution case was that when the petitioners were posted as joint custodian/Manager (Operations) and Cashier respectively, an incident of robbery took place which also resulted in the assassination of security guard of the bank and a criminal case was registered, wherein petitioners were arrayed as accused---In addition to criminal proceedings, the petitioners were also proceeded departmentally---Petitioners were ultimately exonerated from the criminal proceedings but were dismissed in departmental proceedings---Held, that there was no legal impediment in conducting criminal and departmental/disciplinary proceedings side by side---Even in case of acquittal in criminal proceedings, employee could not claim immunity from being proceeded departmentally---Fate of departmental proceedings is always to be adjudged from the incriminating material placed in support of the charges against the delinquent employee---At the same time, one cannot keep himself aloof from the fact that if an employee is precluded to claim the premium of his acquittal in the departmental proceedings, he cannot be vexed merely on account of his conviction in the criminal case---In the process of inquiry, though the petitioners were associated and process was completed on 16h July, 2018, but it appeared from the inquiry report that later on the complainant sent further documents in support of the charges through courier under cover of his letter dated 13th September, 2018, which as per Inquiry Officer were routed to the petitioners so as to give a fair chance of defence for their response/reply with regard to the documents/evidence---Inquiry report was thus revised after taking into consideration the documents submitted by the complainant and the response received from the petitioners in terms thereof---Admittedly, one of the petitioners was absolved from rest of the charges except charge No.1, which too was proved partly to the extent of passing bogus late receipt of Rs. 5,700,000/- in respect of c/a 870-8 and authenticated late cash receipt in Branch Cash Balance Book (B-52)---From the bare reading of nature of the charges, it was manifestly clear that charges Nos.1 and 2 were clearly interlinked and dependent to each other---Charge No.2 was directly relatable to bogus receipts---It was quite strange that on the one hand it was opined by the Inquiry Officer that charge No.2 was not proved but on the contrary, the petitioner was held guilty of charge No. 1 partly to the extent of passing bogus late receipts---Findings of guilt with regard to charge No.1 were not tenable as per Inquiry Officer's own comments---Nature of charges against the other petitioner was almost the same---Inquiry Officer though absolved him from charge No.1 but found him guilty of charge No.2 partly, which findings on the face of it were not reconcilable in view of non-proving of charge No.1, being the main charge---Evidently, the petitioners were held guilty of the charges on the basis of additional material, which was later on purportedly received by the Inquiry Officer from the complainant with regard to which it was specific stance of the petitioners that it was never confronted to them---Though inquiry report stated that said material was confronted to the petitioners but there was no cogent evidence to that effect---Apparently for forming an opinion of guilt of the petitioners, statement of person "MP" recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., and his affidavit was made basis but his statement under S.164, "Cr.P.C" could not be used against the delinquent employee without even affording him an opportunity to conduct cross-examination upon the person, who made such statement---Even otherwise, for the use of statement under S.164, "Cr.P.C", there is a mode provided under said Code, which was not adopted at all---Furthermore, in his statement as well as affidavit, "MP" nowhere named the petitioners as his culprits---In departmental proceedings, standard of proof of the allegations could not be equated with the standard of evidence against an accused in a criminal trial but one could not ignore the principle of natural justice while inflicting even meagre penalty upon a person as it amounted to depriving him from the right of earning---Right of fair trial, even otherwise, had been guaranteed by the "Constitution"---Petitions were allowed and as a sequel, the petitioners were reinstated in service with all permissible back benefits. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1507 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN VS The NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN S.11---National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021, R.2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Jurisdiction of High Court---Non-statutory rules of service---Dismissal from service---Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service---Though jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the "Constitution" to some extent is limited with respect to the orders ensuing from the departmental proceedings determining the guilt or otherwise of an employee but High Court being custodian of the rights of citizens cannot shut its eyes when patent illegalities are floating on the surface of the record---Right of earning is right to life and no one can be allowed to take away such right in a clandestine manner---Petitioners were proceeded against in a non-transparent and haphazard manner in the departmental proceedings, which culminated into their dismissal from service---Impugned orders were apparently suffering from patent illegalities and were against the principles of natural justice---Petitions were allowed and as a sequel, the petitioners were reinstated in service with all permissible back benefits.

MUHAMMAD TARIQ KHAN vs The NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN S — 2024 PLC(CS) 1507 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC