IZZAT B1 iG 'AWAN vs HABIB BANK LIMITED
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a former Cashier of Habib Bank Limited against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed his service appeal in limine. The petitioner had been removed from service on charges of indiscipline and prolonged absence from duty following his involvement in a criminal case and subsequent abscondence. The core legal question was whether the removal of a bank employee for absence caused by criminal involvement and abscondence was justified. The Supreme Court held that banking institutions, relying on public trust, cannot afford the luxury of prolonged employee absence and loss of goodwill. The Court ruled that where an employee's absence and laxity are proven, retention in service is contrary to the bank's interest. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the principle that maintaining discipline and safeguarding public trust in financial institutions justifies the removal of absent employees.
- Can a bank employee be lawfully removed from service for prolonged absence caused by criminal involvement and abscondence?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing a service appeal in limine when charges of indiscipline and absence are proven?
- Does involvement in a criminal case and subsequent abscondence constitute valid grounds for terminating the employment of a bank cashier?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Izzat Baig Awan, former Cashier of Habib Bank Limited, has filed this petition for leave to ' appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment, dated 10-5-2001 passed in Appeal No,98(R)CE/2000 by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in limine by a two-member Bench of the Tribunal headed by the Chairman.
2. Izzat Baig Awan being a Cashier of Habib Bank Limited at Kharian Branch was removed from service on 27-1-2000 on charges of indiscipline and absence from duty. The reason for absence was his involvement in a case of F.I.R. No,233, dated 19-9-1998 under sections 302/324/337/427/147/149, P.P.C.
3. A proper show-cause notice had duly been issued to the petitioner which he had the opportunity to meet with. His absence was not only absolutely clear but besides that he had also gone into abscondence which happended to enhance his absence. The institution of bank is one of trust reposed by the public at large and they in the peculiar nature of the duties of their employees, cannot afford the breach of trust by retaining in service people who are involved in criminal cases and whose absence therefrom, as it was in the instant case, was not only obvious but unavoidable on the part of the official concerned. The absence whether, avoidable or unavoidable is the sole headache of the official but so far as the bank is concerned, it cannot afford the luxury of the absence as well as the loss of goodwill.
4. The case of laxity on part of the petitioner was proved and hence his retention in service being not in the interest of the bank, he was rightly removed. There being no merit in the petition, it is
Cited by 9 cases
- Nosherwan Khan vs United Bank Limited and others 2023 PLC 1
- M/s. United Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and Others 2022 SHC 42
- INAM-UL-HAQ vs ALLIED BANK LIMITED and 4 others 2018 PLC 215
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc K.L.R. 2016 Labour and Service
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. 2016 LHC 1679, 2016 C.L.R. 964
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs CHAIRMAN PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2018 PLC 189
- REGIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UBL MARDAN Versus HABIB UL HASSAN 2015 PLC 246
- MUHAMMAD SHAMIM vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI CENTRAL 2011 CLC 1441
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Assistant Vice-President and Attorney vs ABDUL RAZZAK PATHAN 2007 PLC 353