Bilal Hussain (Deceased) through L.Rs vs President, National Bank Of Pakistan (Nbp), Head Office, I. I. Chundrigarh Road, Karachi and others
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the compulsory retirement of the appellant, a Branch Manager of the National Bank of Pakistan, following disciplinary proceedings for irregularities and procedural violations. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant suffered discrimination regarding the penalty compared to a co-accused, whether monetary loss was established, whether a regular inquiry was conducted, and whether the penalty order was passed by a competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, holding a higher supervisory responsibility as Branch Manager, was lawfully subjected to a major penalty while the co-accused faced a lesser penalty, that monetary loss and a regular inquiry were substantiated by the record, and that the communication of the order by subordinate officers indicated the competent authority had acted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the validity of the disciplinary action.
- Whether a bank employee serving as a Branch Manager can be subjected to a higher penalty than a co-accused subordinate for procedural violations?
- Does the communication of a disciplinary penalty order by administrative officers imply that the competent authority passed the order?
- Whether the absence of demonstrable monetary loss invalidates a disciplinary action for procedural irregularities in banking service?
ORDER
GULZAR AHMED, C.J.---The appellant was employed as Manager , National Bank of Pakistan, Sarw ar Wali Branch, Dera Ghazi Khan (the Bank). He was issued show cause notice/s tatement of allegations dated 16.03.2012. A regular enquiry was condu cted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14.05.2012 finding that charges against the appellant are proved. The appellant was issued second show cause notice and after providing him opportunity of personal hearing vide order dated 12.04.2013, he was imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The appellant filed representation with the President of the Bank, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2014. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan (the High Court), which was heard and decided by the impugned order dated 19.03.2019, by which the petition was dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2021, on the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no monetary loss has been suffered by the Bank and that one Adnan Zafar was also proceeded against but was imposed lesser penalty .
2. To the first submission that no mone tary loss was suffered by the Bank, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank (the respondents) has contended that the Bank did suffer monetary loss and such has been found by the Inquiry Officer in his report. Learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with this argument and was asked to show from the record that no loss has been suffered by the Bank on account of the conduct of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any record in this regard.
3. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that co-accused Adnan Zafar has been imposed lesser penalty . This argument too was controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who contended that the appellant being a Branch Manager having higher responsibility was appropriately imposed penalty that of compulsory retirement, while co-accused Adnan Zafar being an OG-II and functioning under the directions of the appellant, was imposed lesser penalty . This aspect of the matter also could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant from record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further , contended that no regular enquiry was conducted on the show cause notice/statement of allegations against the appellant. This was also responded to by the learned counsel for the respondents by referring to Civil Miscella neous Application No.11159 of 2021, stating that a full-fledged regular enquiry was conducted into the charges made against the appellant and the Inquiry Officer has given a report, which is filed with the civil miscellaneous application.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant finally contended that the order of imposition of penalty was passed by Senior Vice President (SVP)/"Wing Head, Institutional Discipline Wing, HR Management and Admn. Group was not a competent authority , rather the President of the Bank was the competent authority . In this regard learned counsel for the appellant referred to the letter dated 12.04.2013 (available at page-35 of the paper-book), which is as follows:- "National Bank of Pakistan Institutional Discipline Wing HR Management and Admn. Group No.HRM&AGIID/DC/D-MISC-DGK-1 1/1136 Dated April 12th, 2012 The Regional Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Regional Of fice Dera Ghazi Khan.
Dear Sir DISCIPLINAR Y ACTION AGAINST MR. BILAL HUSSAIN, 0G-1/THEN MANAGER IRREGULARITIES/PROCEDURAL VIOLA TIONS REPOR TED AT NBP, SAR WARWALI BRANCH, DERA GHAZI KHAN.
Please refer to your letter No. DGKN/HRM/A W/12/256 dated January 31, 2012 on the above subject.
We advise that the authority after taking into consideration all aspects of the case has retired him compulsorily from bank services with immediate ef fect.
Please take necessary action under advice to all concerned.
Yours faithfully , sd/- sd/- (NIAZ HUSSAIN KORI) (ARIF RAZA ABDY)
ASSTT . VICE PRESIDENT SVP/WING HEAD"
6. Learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with the word 'authority' as mentioned in the above letter . He stated that the authority itself is not mentioned in the letter . Though such an argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant but he has not been able to support the same by any law. It is a routine practice by large organizations that the authority passes an order , which is communicated by the organization's office to the relevant official. The using of the word authority in the letter itself shows that competent authority has passed the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant and the same has been conveyed to him by the Bank officials through the above letter .
7. No illegality in the impugned order is noted nor any has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.