2008 SCMR 1525 (PLP)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Both the petitions arise out of common judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-7-2003, substituting penalty of dismissal from service to withholding of two increments and directing reinstatement of Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi in the employment of Allied Bank of Pakistan.

2. Precise facts appear to be that petitioner Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi was serving as Officer Grade-III in the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited. He was proceeded against on the charge of misconduct for getting certain questions answered in "Accountancy paper" of Banker's Diploma Examination held in summer 1999 by the Institute of Bankers for acquiring higher professional qualification. He defended disciplinary proceedings but was found to be guilty of misconduct and dismissed from service vide order, dated 19-10-1999.

3. In the first instance petitioner filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was rejected with the observations that Federal Government did not own or possess controlling shares in the Allied Bank of Pakistan, therefore, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the penalty. Petitioner, therefore, invoked jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court, Lahore. His grievance petition was hotly contested but ultimately allowed and reinstatement ordered. The employer-Bank challenged the reinstatement order before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal who reversed the findings of the Labour Court and dismissed the grievance petition on a variety of grounds. The petitioner-employee, ultimately, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court which was resisted by the employer-Bank on a number of grounds. The High Court, inter alia, held that Branch of the Bank in which the petitioner was serving could not be treated as an "establishment" in isolation from the Bank establishment as a whole. Principle of double jeopardy for double punishment for same act was decided against the petitioner-employee. It was held that he was a workman within the scope of Standing Orders .Ordinance, 1968, and that petition before the Labour Court even if barred by time delay was rightly condoned by the Appellate Court and not disturbed by the Appellate Tribunal. Finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct, however, the High Court took a lenient view in the matter of penalty by substituting the same as aforesaid. Both parties feeling aggrieved by the findings and judgment of the High Court now seek leave to appeal.

4. We have heard Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi in Civil Petition No.2617 of 2003 and Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court in Civil Petition No.1859 of 2003, who has, inter alia, contended that apart from other findings which may not be sustained at law, at any rate, High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction could not alter or modify the penalty imposed upon an employee though such power vested in an appellate forum. Reliance is placed on Pakistan Tobacco Company v. Channa Khan 1980 PLC 981 (SC) and Brig. (Retd.) F.B. Ali v. The State PLD 1975 SC 506.

5. The questions raised appear to be question of law of public importance, therefore, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to examine, inter alia, the question of jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of alteration of penalty in its writ jurisdiction. Order accordingly.

6. Since a short question is involved in these petitions, office is directed to list them out for final hearing before the year 2005 is out. S.A.K./A-192/SC Order accordingly.