2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.

Petitioner, Aftab Ahmed Kolachi an officer of Zarai Taraqiati Bank, facing charge of misconduct, has challenged the departmental enquiry being made against him.

2. Briefly, the facts are that on 28th September, 2002, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the charges of reckless lending by sanctioning loans of Rs.4.737 million. On appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal, by its judgment, dated 24th June, 2006, remanded the case to the bank for holding fresh enquiry within four months of the receipt of copy of the judgment, as there were some defects in the previous enquiry. The appellant was directed to be reinstated in service, but the question of back-benefits was deferred and made dependant upon the result of fresh enquiry. However, it was observed that in case the enquiry was not completed within four months, the petitioner shall be entitled to all the back-benefits.

3. The petitioner reported for duty but the bank vide its letter dated 4th August, 2006 did not take him in service on the ground that the appeal before the Service Tribunal stood abated in the light of the decision, dated 27-6-2006, of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Mubeen-u-Salam's case.

4. The petitioner approached this Court, filed C.P. No.D-290 of 2006 before Circuit Court, Hyderabad, for directing the bank to implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the petition, the bank reinstated him in service on 19-12-2007 and, therefore, he withdrew the petition on 30-1-2008. Under the present petition, which was filed on 18-1-2008, the petitioner seeks quashment of the fresh enquiry on the ground that it, having not been completed within four months as directed by the Tribunal, stood vitiated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, Re: Zahooruddin Shaikh v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, reported 2007 PLC (C.S.) 959, contended that non-completion of enquiry within the period prescribed by the Tribunal vitiated the proceedings. We are unable to subscribe to the view. Directions for the performance of official duties within a particular time are generally construed as directory and not mandatory, unless expressly provided otherwise. Many statutes, such as the Family Courts Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act etc. contain time frame for the completion of proceedings but that does not mean that non-completion of proceedings within the prescribed time will have the effect of vitiating the proceedings.

6. In the present case the order of the Tribunal does not say that in the event of non-completion of enquiry within four months, the proceedings shall abate. The only effect of non-completion of the enquiry within four months provided by the order is that the petitioner shall be entitled to the back-benefits which were otherwise deferred and made dependent upon the result of the enquiry. It does not say that the enquiry cannot be continued after four months.

7. Thus, the only consequence of the non-completion of enquiry within four months will be that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive all the back-benefits. It was for these reasons that by a short order, passed on 22-5-2008, the bank (respondent No.2) was directed to pay the back-benefits to the petitioner in compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal and the enquiry was directed to be completed expeditiously preferably within three months. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate in the enquiry and file reply to the charge-sheet within 15 days thereof. AMR/A-150/K Petition disposed off.