2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J.

These Constitutional Petitions arising out of similar grievance of the parties, therefore, are being disposed of through this common order.

2. The petitioners have assailed the charge sheets/show-cause notices of even date i.e. 7th October, 2016 (impugned charge sheets/ show-cause notices) in disciplinary proceedings on various grounds including limitation and violation of relevant policy of the Bank.

3. The petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.(S). 123 of 2017 is presently working as OG-1 Manager National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) Dera Allay Yar and according to him, he was posted as Manager on 15th April 2015 at NBP Dera Murad Jamali Branch and he has assumed the charge on the same day. After assuming the charge, he came to know that special audit was conducted by the respondents during the span of 2010 to 2015, but the former Manager did not submit objections on the same, however, he submitted parawise comments on the audit report clarifying his position to the effect that he assumed the charge on 15th April, 2015.

4. The petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.(S)124 of 2017 contended that he was serving as Officer Grade-I in National Bank of Pakistan and at present is posted at Dera Allay Yar and prior to that he was serving as Operation Manager as well as Manager in National Bank Usta Muhammad Branch. He also impugned his charge/show-cause notice dated 7th October 2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had submitted reply of charge sheets/show-cause notices; that prior to charge sheets, the petitioners had also submitted comments on special audit report; that according to Employees Discipline Policy (EDP), special procedure is provided for initiating of inquiry, but in utter violation of said policy, the impugned charge sheets/show-cause notices had been issued, which are without competence and having no lawful authority; that this Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction to declare unlawful and set aside the charge sheets/show-cause notices, because the respondents authority cannot penalize the petitioners for an act of their no fault.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It appears that prior to instant petitions, the petitioners through all Pakistan Officers Association through its Chairman had invoked the jurisdiction of the NIRC related to their respective grievance, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction vide order dated 7th September 2017 passed by NIRC Karachi Bench. In the instant petitions, the petitioners had challenged the impugned charge sheets/show-cause notices mainly on the ground that the same were issued in violation of EDP, wherein the competency as well as question of limitation had been provided for issuance of charge sheet within a period of 30 days. It is apparent that the respondents appointed the enquiry officer as envisaged under the relevant law, who issued the impugned charge sheets/show-cause notices containing statement of allegations. Furthermore, from the perusal of the charge-sheets, it is clear that the instant enquiries against the petitioners are being initiated on account of failure of the petitioners in discharge of their respective official duties, whereby the petitioners were called upon to submit written defence and explain their position. The petitioners had also submitted their respective replies the impugned charge sheet/show-cause notices. It is apparent that the respondents exercised their powers conferred under the relevant disciplinary rules, whereby show-cause notices had been issued in the form of charge sheets and have asked the petitioners for their written defence. The charge sheets/show-cause notices are step in aid towards ultimate result of the disciplinary proceedings and its purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Charge sheet/show-cause notice is an initial step of the disciplinary proceedings and the delinquent has/have right to make his/their defence. At this stage, it is not desirable that this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction may find out as which version is true, when there are claim and counter claim on factual issues. The allegations made by the petitioners that they had not committed any misconduct related to function, which they were required to have discharged or the inquiry/charge sheets were to be issued within the time frame under EDP cannot be sustained at this stage. All these questions raised by the petitioners have to be tested by the inquiry officer while conducting the enquiry. This Court at this stage is not required to look into those aspects nor is to suppose to conduct its own to test the validity of the charge sheets. It is well settled that a person invoking constitutional jurisdiction has to establish that he is an aggrieved person/party as defined in Clause (1)(a) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Secondly relief sought by him is one which he has legal right to seek under rule, regulation or law and thirdly for seeking relief sought by him no other forum or remedy is available to him. This provision provides remedy for infringement of such rights. A mere charge sheet/show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order, which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so, nor issuance of charge sheets/show cause notices infringe the right of any party. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adverse order affecting a party is passed, then the said party can be said to have any grievance. Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet, as the petitioners had alternate remedy and it would have been much better for the petitioners to state their respective defence before the inquiry officer, therefore, the instant petitions, at this stage, are not maintainable. Reference in this respect is to be made to the case titled Virasat Ullah v. Bashir Ahmad. Settlement Commissioner (Industries) and another, (1969 SCMR 154), wherein the August Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under: "We are unable to see any point in this leave petition except the uneasiness on the part of the petitioner to undo to the notice issued to him by the Settlement Commissioner which merely required that the petitioner should disclose his credential as the transferee of the property in dispute. The learned Single Judge has directed that the entitlement of the petitioner should be duly examined and we see no apparent reason why the petitioner wants to avoid this examination. The grievance of the petitioner at this stage is baseless and premature." In view of the above, Constitutional Petitions Nos.(S) 123 and 124 of 2017 are dismissed in limine. KMZ/137/Bal Petition dismissed.