PRESIDENT UNITED BANK LTD. And Other vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BUTT
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment dated 17th of June, 2000, which had accepted the respondent's appeal assailing his dismissal from service. The core legal question concerned whether the service tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal order due to the failure to conduct a proper inquiry and non-compliance with requisite rules, specifically noting that the charge sheet was sent after the prescribed time for submitting a reply and proper opportunity was denied. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal order as no proper inquiry had been conducted and rules were not complied with, finding no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned judgment nor any question of public importance to justify interference. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, with the observation that the bank may proceed afresh against the respondent in accordance with the law and rules.
- Whether a dismissal from service can be sustained when no proper inquiry has been conducted and requisite rules are not complied with?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a service tribunal judgment in the absence of a question of public importance?
- Whether an employer can proceed afresh against an employee in accordance with law after a dismissal order is set aside for procedural irregularities?
ORDER
1. SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 17th of June, 2000 whereby the appeal preferred by respondent assailing his dismissal, from service was accepted observing that the order passed by the competent authority was not produced despite number of opportunities having been given to the petitioner-bank. Mr. Shahid Karim, ASC vehemently contends that the same was produced but was not taken into consideration. We have gone through the order impugned and have notice that as per envelope produced by the petitioner the charge sheet was sent to the respondent per registered post on 17.6.1997 i.e., three days after the prescribed time for submitting the reply thereto by respondent. The postal report further indicates that respondent refused to accept its delivery oh 19.6. f997 whereas the dismissal order was passed on 24.6.1997. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no proper Inquiry had been conducted and requisite rules were also not complied with, hence, in our view the Tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal order of the respondent. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality and ambiguity with the order impugned. Furthermore, we do not find any question of public importance justifying interference with the same. While dismissing this petition suffice it to observe that the bank may proceed afresh against the respondent in accordance with the law and rules on the subject. Petition stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.