ASIF MEHMOOD BUTT vs REGIONAL CEO, NBP and others

ORDER

; CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contends that the petitioner, having spotless service career of 25 years to his credit, while serving as Manager NBP Dorey Branch, District Chakwal, due to enmity, device and intrigue of some employees, was falsely made accused in case F.I.R. No,29 of 1998 got registered by Israr Ahmad at Police Station FIA, State Bank Circle, Rawalpindi. Learned counsel further contends that the complaint was under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 409, 109, P.P.C. Read with 5(2), 47, P.C.A. With the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for unauthorized withdrawal of more than Rs,4,00,000 from different accounts and Challan was submitted. He further avers that the authorities, without lawful justification deprived the petitioner of an amount of Rs,4,61,793.66. Rs,2,00,000 on 18-8-1998 and Rs,247,497 on 26-10-1998 were got deposited from his brother-in-law Talab Nadeem on behalf of the petitioner and also deducted Rs,14,296.36 from outstanding salary of petitioner on 26-8-1998. Learned counsel further contends that besides that the petitioner was subjected to uncalled disciplinary action and got dismissed from service w.e.f, 21-3-2000. Representation was filed but not attended, meanwhile after trial, the petitioner was found innocent and acquitted by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore vide its judgment dated 13-4-2009. Further contends that after acquittal from the case, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,2744 of 2009 before this court which was allowed and this court directed the respondents to considered the writ petitioner as representation of petitioner and after giving personal hearing, the matter be decided but respondents did not gave any heed to the order of this court and passed a non-speaking order dated 3-5-2010, therefore, writ petition be accepted, the impugned order of rejection of representation cum-appeal as well as order of termination of petitioner from service A dated 3-5-2010 be set aside with a direction for his re- instatement in service with all back benefit and return of his amount of Rs,4,61,793 and salary up to 21-8-2000.

2. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this writ petition on the grounds that respondents are not competent to re-instate the petitioner as the petitioner shall have filed writ petition against National Bank of Pakistan who is a legal entity. Further contends that this court cannot pass a decree for recovery of money nor reinstate the petitioner as the service of petitioner under the National Bank of Pakistan is governed by non-statutory rules, therefore, writ is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon "Mir Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" (1996 SCM R 315),. "Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director H.M.C. Taxila and others" (PLD 2002 SC 13) and "Executive Engineer and others v. Zahid Sharif" (2005 SCM R 824) and has prayed that the writ be dismissed.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Perusal of record highlights that writ petition is not competent on both the scores pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent firstly, that it is not filed against the National Bank of Pakistan which is a legal entity and secondly, the service of petitioner under the National Bank of Pakistan is governed by non-statutory rules. Their breach is not redressible in writ jurisdiction. Case of petitioner is governed by master and servant relationship. So, the remedy against wrongTul dismissal from or termination of service is by way of damages and not reinstatement in service.

Similarly, the National Bank of Pakistan has no statutory rules for its employees. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. So far the 'argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned about the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it is settled law that acquittal of an employee from criminal case would not impose a bar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, as his acquittal would have no bearing on disciplinary proceedings at all. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed.