2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Civil Petitions Nos.1584 and 1585 of 2003) and for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 1990 of 2003.) Nemo for Respondents (in other Civil Petitions.) Date of hearing: 27th October, 2003. HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑These are six civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against the common order dated 17‑7‑2003 in Appeals Nos.93, 103 and 104(R)CE of 2003 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby the orders passed.by the petitioner Habib Bank Ltd. against the petitioners (i) Mahmood Ali Khan (Civil Petition No. 1990 of 2003), (ii) Jawad Ahmad (Civil Petition No. 1957 of 2003) and (iii) Mehmood‑ul‑Hassan (Civil Petition No. 1990 of 2003) were set aside and they were ordered to be reinstated in service from the date of issuance of their respective impugned orders challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal and petitioner Habib Bank Ltd. was directed to hold disciplinary proceedings against the respondents‑employees of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and complete process within four months and further so far the question of back‑benefits it was ordered to be determined after the decision of the de novo proceedings against the respondents employees.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos. 1583, 1584 and 1585 of 2003 are the employer/Habib Bank Ltd. whereas the petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.1956, 1957 and 1990 of 2003 are the employees of Habib Bank Ltd. working in various grades. The petitioners/employees of the Habib Bank Ltd. were issued detailed charge‑sheet and statement of allegations wherein they were charged with fraud, misappropriation of huge amount by opening accounts, fraudulently withdrawing the proceeds and crediting them in their personal accounts, violating prescribed procedure which facilitated wrongful credit of various amounts in the accounts of Messrs Saba Motors and Mr. Shakeel Javaid Bhatti and connived in committing wrongful acts. Thereafter enquiry was held against the respondents employees by the Enquiry Officer so appointed, submitted his report in which he opined that the respondents‑employees have committed acts of misconduct, therefore show‑cause notices were issued and after due process the Competent Authority awarded various punishments as per impugned order to the respondents-employees. The respondents employees submitted departmental appeals which were not disposed of within statutory period, therefore service appeals were filed which were disposed of as per impugned common judgment hence these petitions.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the; parties in all petitions said above and perused the record.

4. Counsel for the parties have raised the following contentions:‑‑ (i) That the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was no requirement under the principle of natural justice that the person who has been given the charge‑sheet/statement of allegations and given full opportunity of hearing in the domestic enquiry and thereafter issued show‑cause notice would also be entitled to personal hearing, before finally deciding the matter under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000; (ii) that the learned Federal Service Tribunal has erred in law by ordering the reinstatement and holding de novo, enquiry proceedings when it stood proved that the respondents employees had committed the acts of misconduct; (iii) the orders of dismissal/removal/termination and prior to it suspension, charge‑sheet, show‑cause notice and the proceedings before the Enquiry Committee were done and passed by incompetent authority; (iv) 'that the petitioners/employees were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing before the final order of dismissal/ removal/termination.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner‑Habib Bank Ltd. has placed reliance upon (i) Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah and others ‑PLD 1981 SC 225, (ii) Sarfraz. v. General Manager (Leaf) Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others 1988 SCMR 1352, (iii) Maqbool Elahi v. Province of Punjab and others 1997 PLC (C.S) 1146, and (iv) WAPDA through Chairman v. Zulfiqar Ali 2002 PLC (C.S.)

128. Learned counsel for the petitioners‑employees has placed reliance upon (i) Abdul Aziz Khan v. The Postmaster General, Southern Punjab 2000 PSC 1248 and (ii) Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2002 SCMR 1034 in support of his contention.

6. We have been informed that there is no authoritative decision of this Court after the promulgation of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance on the points raised before this Court, therefore we grant leave to appeal to consider the contention raised before us. The matter is an important and of urgent nature, therefore appeals be listed within three month. Meanwhile the petitioner‑Bank would reinstate the respondents‑employees in terms of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal within a period of seven days. S.A.K./H‑4/S Leave granted.