2002 P L (PLP)

Date of hearing: 14th December, 2001. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave is sought against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal,. Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 14‑7‑21001, passed is Appeal No.435(k) 1997.

2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Rasheed Ahmed Was appointed as Cashier in the United Bank Limited on .10‑7‑‑1974. Subsequently, the respondent was posted as Assistant in Hirabad Branch, Mir Purkhas. He was also a General Secretary of the Staff Union, Mirpurkhas Zone. He was charge‑sheeted on the ground that he had availed a loan under the Head NISF for House Building in the unauthorized manner and in excess of his entitlement. Mr. Abdul Ghani Memon, AVP inquired into the charge‑ sheet, against whom the respondent levelled the charges of unfair and partial conduct while holding the inquiry Consequently the General Manager vide his letter dated 8‑5‑1993 disagreed with the first inquiry report conducted' and submitted by Mr. Abdul Ghani Memon and directed that a fresh inquiry be held in the matter. While ordering the second inquiry against the respondent again Mr. Abdul Ghani Memon was appointed as inquiry Office. The respondent vide application dated 24‑5‑1993 protested this action on the part of SVP/GM of the Bank. The Inquiry Officer after holding ex parte inquiry submitted his report to the authorities concerned. On his report, the services of the respondent were terminated vide order, dated 14‑1‑1997.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent challenged his dismissal order in the Tribunal through. Appeal No.435(K) of 1997, which was accepted and he was reinstated in service vide impugned judgment dated 14‑7‑2001. Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner‑Bank, inter alia, contended that the relations of employer and employee are governed under the principle of master and servant read with the Bank's Service Rules; that the respondent was given full opportunity to explain his position by serving show‑cause notice to him; that the respondent was dismissed from service on 14‑1‑1997 and the grievance petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 was abated on 6‑8‑1997 by the Labour Court; that after insertion of section 2‑A in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 10‑6‑1997, the matter already stood abated on the same date; that the respondent was required to file appeal under section 6 of the said Act but the same was filed under section 4 of the said Act, which was also a premature appeal under the provision of law; that the orders of dismissal from service passed by the competent authority of the Bank could not be converted into reinstatement in service; and that the impugned has not been passed on justifiable grounds.

5. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the petition may be dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the meterial available on record. It will be pertinent to note that when the first inquiry was taking place, the respondent had fervently protested the appointment of Mr. Abdul Ghani Memon as the Inquiry Officer, but even then the same officer was appointed to hold the second inquiry. against the respondent. It is very interesting to note that Mr. Shamshad Ali, G.M. had turned down the findings and report of the first inquiry for the reasons that it was held in ex parte manner. In our opinion, the Bank Authorities did not act in proper and legal manner while getting the second inquiry report conducted by the same Inquiry Officer. The learned Tribunal with sound and cogent reasons has rightly set aside the dismissal order of the respondent. It is appropriate to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment which reads as under:‑‑ "

8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given above, we find that dismissal order passed against the appellant cannot be sustained and, while, allowing the appeal of appellant we set aside the said impugned dismissal order. But we find that the allegations against the appellant in respect of grant of House Building loan in excess of his entitlement through pressure, and coercion is yet to be thrashed out arid requires further probe. Hence we order that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith and a fresh inquiry be conducted and completed against him on the same charge‑sheet within three months of the announcement of this judgment. The decision in respect of period from the date of dismissal of the appellant to his reinstatement will be decided in view of the result of the inquiry proceedings to be conducted against the appellant in accordance with the rules while giving full opportunity to the appellant to defend himself including the opportunity of cross‑examination of the prosecution witnesses, if and when produced. "

7. For the foregoing reasons, in our considered view, the impugned judgment is based on the principles laid down by this Court. Also, we do not B find any illegality, or irregularity, or misconstruction of law therein.

8. Resultantly the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./U‑14/S Petition dismissed.