1989 PLP 276 (PLC)
Syed MASHHOOD ASHRAF Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 276 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | Syed MASHHOOD ASHRAF Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 276 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 276 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 276 (PLC) (Syed MASHHOOD ASHRAF Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farani, Bar‑at‑law for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Bank Service Rules, Rr.16, 39 & 41‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--‑ Disciplinary action against Bank employees‑‑Constitutional petition filed seeking quashing of proceedings‑‑Contentions that by tendering resignation alongwith 3 months' pay, irrespective of its non‑acceptance, employee ceased to be Bank employee and inquiry proceedings against him were rendered incompetent‑‑Held, employee having tendered his resignation after issue of charge‑sheet could not frustrate inquiry and consequential infliction of punishment which he might essentially deserve‑‑Use of the word "and" in R. 41 implies that both the acts of issuing charge‑sheet and appointment of Enquiry Officer shall be performed by the same competent Authority‑‑Quashment of proceedings declined
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.‑-‑This I.‑CA. is directed against the order dated 15‑3‑1983 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition No. 4414 of 1982 brought by the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. It is argued that rule 16 of the Rules governing the service employees of the Bank, confers an absolute right on the appellant to tender resignation and in lieu or notice, to pay to the Bank, a sum equal to his substantive pay for three months. According to the learned counsel the moment the appellant submitted his resignation alongwith three months' pay, irrespective of its non‑acceptance by the Bank, he ceased to be its employee and the inquiry proceedings commenced against him, were rendered incompetent. Reliance was also placed on rule 41 to contend that when the charge‑sheet was issued the appointment of the Inquiry Officer should also have been made simultaneously. To high‑light his this submission, the learned counsel read out rule 41 and submitted that the word "and" figuring in:‑ ..shall cause a charge‑sheet to be issued to him and shall appoint an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee to hold an inquiry .. is conjunctive. His last submission was that the inquiry initiated against the appellant was mala fide. In this respect, the delay occasioned in completing the inquiry was one of the main factor, on which plea of mala fides was sought to be rested.
3. We have gone through the available record and also examined the relevant rules to evaluate these arguments. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. The appellant tendered his resignation after the issue of charge sheet. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, then an employee A accused of howsoever, a serious charge, can frustrate the inquiry and consequential infliction of punishment under rule 39, which he may essentially deserve. The provisions relating to disciplinary action against an employee cannot be made subservient to his unilateral tender of his resignation under rule 16.
4. We are also unable to accept the interpretation put on rule 41, by the learned counsel as to the synchronous issue of the charge‑sheet and the g appointment of an Inquiry Officer. Here, what the user of the word "and" implies is that both the acts shall be performed by the same competent authority. It is difficult to agree, that a time lag between the issue of the charge‑sheet and appointment of an Inquiry Officer, would render such appointment as illegal.
5. On the question of mala fides too, we, do not feel persuaded to differ with the learned Single Judge. Accordingly this I.‑CA. is dismissed in limine but we endorse the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the last para of the impugned order and further direct that the inquiry .shall be completed expeditiously preferably within four months. M.Z.S./M/1023/L Appeal dismissed.