HABIB BANK LIMITED through Attorneys vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL SAMAD KHAN

' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.1340 and 1341 of 2003, which are directed against a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 14-4-2003, passed in Appeals Nos.201(P)CE, 494(P)CE and 203(P)CE of 2001.

2. The facts, in brief, are that one Muhammad Aslam, an Officer of the Habib Bank Limited, Cantt.

Branch, Peshawar, of which respondent Ashfaq Ahmad remained Sub-Manager and the Chief Manager from 12-5-1994 to 16-10-1997 and 17-10-1997 to 29-4-1999 respectively and respondent Abdul Samad Khan, Sub -Manager from 12-12-1998 to 30-4-1999 and 29-10-1999 to 24-4-2000, allegedly embezzled an amount of over Rupees 16 million by debiting the accounts of Defence Savings Certificate and WAPDA Bearer Bonds by means of fake cash debit vouchers during the period of 1995-1999. The fraud was detected after the transfer of Muhammad Aslam to another branch and that also when he started to adjust the misappropriated amount. As a result of investigation it was found that Muhammad Aslam alone was involved in misappropriation of the amount; whereas the respondents as his supervisors failed to control him and did not apply rules and regulations of the Bank thereby allowing Muhammad Aslam to continue his activities.

3. On receipt of the report of the investigation and the Audit, the Karachi Head Office of the Bank vide letter. Dated 11-1-2001 authorized the Vice-President and Regional General Manager.

Operations and Support Services, Peshawar, to initiate disciplinary action against the respondents and 12 others officers of the bank involved in the fraud, one way or the other under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Consequently, charge-sheets, dated 10-2-2001 were issued to the respondents on the following charges:--

(i) Negligence/inefficiency in performance of duty.

(ii) Breach of law. Rules and regulations

4. Respondents replied to the charge-sheets denying the allegations; after which notices dated 8- 3-2001 were issued to the respondents, specifying the allegations and appointing an Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report finding the respondents guilty. This was followed by show-cause notices served upon the respondents by the Regional General Manager, who upon receipt of their replies forwarded the case to the Karachi Head Office of the Bank with his recommendations on 20-6-2001. The Competent Authority unnoticed the recommendations of the Regional General Manager and imposed penalties recommended by the Inquiry Committee vide order dated 13-7-2001. Respondents' departmental appeals were turned down.

' Thereafter, the respondents filed appeals before the learned Tribunal, which were accepted vide judgment impugned herein. Hence, these petitions.

5. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider the case in its proper perspective; that all decisions pertaining to issuance of show-cause notices and conducting of inquiry as well as imposing penalties were specifically made by the Competent Authority i.e, the President of the Bank- petitioner; that the officers subordinate to the President merely acted in a kind of clerical capacity in communicating the decision made by the President and implementing the decision which did not amount to delegation of authority by the President.

6. On the other hand, Shah Abdur Rashid, learned counsel for the respondents strongly supported the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal, and submitted that the instant petitions may be dismissed.

7. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on the file. During the course of the aruments learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to whether Notification duly signed by the President of the Bank was exhibited during pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, to which he miserably failed to answer and pinpoint whether such Notification of the Competent Authority was produced before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that all the actions taken by the department as well as the imposition of penalties upon the respondents were mala fide, therefore, it accepted the appeals. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "14. We fully agree with the contention that the proceedings were mala fide of law. There is, therefore, no need to go into otherpoints raised by the learned counsel for the appellant including merits of the case. The fact that the proceedings were mala fide of law is sufficient to accept the appeals and set aside the impugned orders in both Appeals i.e,No,SAS/TM/IS/192522 dated 13-7- 2001 and No,SAS/TM/ISI148582. Dated 13-7-2001. The respondent-Bank is however, at liberty to conduct de novo proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law, if so advised. Such proceedings, if initiated, should be completed within a period of five months from the receipt of this judgment. The question of back-benefits will depend on the outcome of such proceedings but if not held and completed within stipulated period of time, the appellants would be entitled to all back-benefits."

8. The above mentioned paragraph of the impugned judgment clearly manifests that the learned Tribunal in its wisdom rightly allowed the appeals of the respondents remanding the matter to the authorities concerned. The impugned judgment is self explanatory and is entirely based on the proper appreciation of facts, law and decisions of this Court, which are quoted in the impugned judgment. Moreover, no substantial question of law of public importance as envisaged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is involved in these petitions.

9. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the firm view that these petitions are without merit and substance, which are dismissed and leave to appeal refused.