NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN And Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitution petition filed by the first respondent was allowed and a departmental punishment order dated 30-12-1986 was set aside due to the failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. The core legal question raised in the petition is whether, upon finding a departmental order bad in law for violating principles of natural justice, the High Court ought to have set aside the entire proceedings from the commencement or merely the proceedings held after the illegality, and whether consequential benefits could be granted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these points, suspended the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record.
- Whether failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing vitiates the entire departmental proceedings or only the proceedings held after the illegality?
- Can consequential benefits be granted when a departmental punishment order is declared to be without lawful authority?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, dated 28-6-1989 by which a Constitution Petition filed by the first respondent was allowed as under: "Since the opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner by the competent authority before infliction of punishment, the writ petition is accepted with consequential benefits and order dated 30-12-1986 is declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and is set aside:"
2. Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that even if the High Court was persuaded to take the view that the impugned order passed against the petitioner was bad in law on the ground that it offended the principles of natural justice, the maximum relief that could be granted to the respondent was to declare that the departmental proceedings held after the illegality were without lawful authority and not the entire proceedings from the commencement.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the consequential benefits granted to the respondent which are likely to be construed the same as prayed by the respondent could not be allowed to him even if the order challenged before the High Court was illegal.
4. These and 'other points raised in the petition deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant leave and allow the petition. Security Rs.2,000.
5. Appeal will be heard on the present record on a date in office in February, 1990. It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
6. The operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand suspended till the appeal is decided.