2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

8. The record of the appeal (pleadings of the parties) indicates that the respondent has filed the documents including the charge‑sheet, the notice of inquiry and entire inquiry proceedings alongwith the Inquiry Report in support of its assertions to the effect that the appellant was proceeded according to the law and the impugned order has been passed quite legally by the competent Authority on the basis of proper departmental inquiry in which he (the appellant) did not participate dispute an opportunity to participate in the inquiry.

9. Admittedly a charge‑sheet/show cause notice dated 11‑12‑1996 was issued which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑. It has been reported that you alongwith Amjad Ali Siddiqi, Assistant, Ghulam Mustafa, Cashier, Ghulam Farooq, Cashier, Fazal Hussain Umrani, Cashier left your place of' work without seeking permission from your superiors. You alongwith the above named employees occupied the open space in front of PLS Counters at I.I. Chundrigar Road Branch by putting a table and chair and two setters meant for I use by customers. These acts were done by you on 8‑12‑1996, 9‑12‑1996 and 10‑12‑1996 for the whole working days. The above acts on your part constitute misconduct under the law. You are hereby called upon to explain in writing within a period of seven (7) days of the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action under law should not be taken against you. Please note that if you fill to explain as stipulated above, the management may proceed ex pane." was served on him calling upon him specifically in writing his explanation within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the notice. Undisputedly the appellant did not reply the said show‑cause notice but wrote a letter dated C 15‑12‑1996 to the SDM Aram Bagh South, Karachi to restrain the respondent‑Bank to harm him.

10. The document of the respondent‑Bank dated 21‑12‑1996 indicates that after expiry of 7 days from 11‑12‑1996 and having received no reply thereto from the appellant, the respondent ordered an inquiry then Mr. Qasim Anjum, VP (SAMG‑K) was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter. It has been proved by the respondent's document dated 26‑12‑1996 that the appellant was apprised of the fact that he has not submitted any reply to the charge‑sheet/show‑cause notice and that an inquiry has been ordered to be conducted by the duly appointed Inquiry Officer namely Mr. Qasim Anjum, Vice‑President, and that he was called to attend the inquiry alongwith the witnesses on the stipulated date, time and place which is quite evident from the very notice of inquiry dated 26‑12‑1996, reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "You were charge‑sheeted vide Charge‑Sheet No.IIC:ZC:430:96 dated 11‑12‑1996: You did not submit any reply to the charge‑sheet. It has, therefore, been decided to conduct enquiry into allegations of misconduct against you. Mr. Qasim Anjum, Vice‑President has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and the enquiry has been scheduled for 15‑1‑1997 at 10‑00 a.m. at SAMG (Karachi Region), State Life Building No. 11, Abdullah Haroon Road, Opposite Zainab Market, Karachi. You are hereby called upon to attend the enquiry alongwith your witnesses, if any. Please note that if you fail to attend as stipulated above the enquiry may proceed ex parte." which was sent to him by registered post at his residential address.

11. In our view the Inquiry Officer had rightly held in above situation that the notice of the inquiry sent through registered post was received by him. In this respect reliance can very safely be made on the law of 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1044 wherein it has been held that service, through registered post addressed to proper address, would be sufficient to hold that the service/letter was received by the addressee and that the person, so addressed on his correct address, would not be allowed to take plea that he was not served personally. The appellant has not disputed the correctness of his address given in the notice of inquiry dated 26‑12‑1996. Therefore, we hold that the appellant was served with notice of inquiry whereby he was apprised of the fact of the notice reproduced above.

12. We find available in the record, the inquiry proceedings with the remarks of the Inquiry Officer that he had no choice but to proceed ex parte against the appellant who did not choose to participate in the proceedings by appearing before him on the date, time and place of proceedings. He recorded the statement of witnesses with the remarks that no cross examination of the witnesses could be conducted on account of absence of the appellant. Thus the proceedings of the inquiry were concluded ex parte on 19‑1‑1997 by the Inquiry Officer who prepared and submitted inquiry report on 20‑1‑1997 with the findings that charges against the appellants were proved in view of the statement of witness. He finally concluded his inquiry report with the remarks that he found the appellant guilty of misconduct as alleged against him.

13. Thereafter, the competent Authority, on receipt of the Inquiry Report alongwith inquiry proceedings, has passed the impugned order dated 26‑1‑1997.

14. In view of the documents available with the pleadings of the respondent, discussed above, we cannot accept the contention/plea of the appellant that no departmental inquiry has been held and that impugned order has been passed without giving him any chance of defence and personal hearing.

15. We have also gone through grievance notice dated 24‑2‑1997. It is clear from its perusal that he has not alleged therein that he had been condemned unheard and was kept out of the inquiry proceedings intentionally by the respondent or the Inquiry Officer by sending inquiry notice on incorrect residential address, therefore cannot be accepted the plea that the respondent had passed the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant without holding any inquiry and the impugned order is illegal and suffers from legal infirmity as asserted. by the appellant in his Memo. of appeal and argued by his learned counsel.

16. It has rightly been contended by Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank that the appellant has neither contended/pleaded in his appeal that the impugned order is bad for final show‑cause notice and personal hearing before its passage nor he is entitled E to the same, in view of the well‑settled law reported as 1999 SCMR 1237 and PLD 1981 SC 225 wherein it has been held that non‑issuance of subsequent notice calling the employee to show cause against the proposed penalty as relevant service rules did not provide the requirement of second show‑cause notice. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, has contended that the rules of 1st Women Bank Ltd., Karachi discussed under the above citations are quite identical to the UBL (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 application to the appellant in the instant case.

17. For the foregoing reasons and our discussion on facts and law, we hold that instant service appeal fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith all identical appeals mentioned in the title with no order as to costs.

18. Parties concerned be informed accordingly. H.B.T./105/FST Appeal dismissed.