Nasir-ul-Mulk, J.--By this common judgment, it is proposed to dispose of Civil Appeal Nos, 991, 992 of 2001 and 441 to 447 of 2004.
2. The appellants were at the relevant time, in the year, 1993-94, employees in three different branches of the United Bank Limited, (hereinafter referred to as `UBL'). Ishtiaq Ahmad Sheikh and Muhammad Naeem Shaikh, appellants in C.A. Nos, 991 and 992 of 2001, were serving as Manager/Assistant Vice-President and Incharge Foreign Exchange Department, Kutchary Bazar Branch, Faisalabad. Zahid Umar Farooqui, Muhammad Feroz and Muhammad Yaqoob, appellants in C.A. Nos, 442, 443 and 447 of 2004, were at the relevant time, serving at the Bandar Road Branch, Karachi of UBL, whereas the remaining appellants namely, Nisar Ahmed Ansari, M. Umar Suleman, M. Fayyazuddin and Zahid Hameed, appellants in C.A. Nos, 441, 444, 445 and 446 of 2004, were posted at the Saleh Muhammad Street Branch, Karachi. The services of all of them were terminated in the year 1997. They filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. By a single judgment and order dated 13.4.1999, the appeals of Ishtiaq Ahmad Sheikh and Muhammad Naeem Sheikh, were dismissed. The appeals of the remaining appellants were also dismissed by another common judgment on 23.11.2000. The two judgments are now the subject matter of these appeals.
Leave was first granted in C.P. Nos, 1054 and 1055 of 1999 (C.A. Nos, 991 and 992 of 2001), on the basis of which leave to appeal was also granted in the remaining appeals. Para 4 of the leave granting order reads as under: "4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the impugned judgment and submitted that no particular rule or regulation has been either mentioned or relied upon which was said to have been violated, that documents appended by the petitioners with their replies to the charge sheet and produced in appeal before the Service Tribunal and their defence plea have been ignored and the case decided on the basis of news item about the alleged bad reputation of Tawakal Group, that all along the petitioners kept the higher authorities aware of the matter, therefore, they could not have been punished; that extreme penalty of dismissal from service could not be imposed, for at the most it was a case of negligence and not of corruption even if allegations for the sake of arguments without conceding are admitted as correct.
Leave is granted to consider, inter-alia, the above submissions."
3. These are three sets of appeals pertaining to three different branches of UBL, namely, Kuchary Bazar Branch. Faisalabad, Saleh Muhammad street Branch, Karachi and Bandar Road Branch, Karachi. The broad allegations and reasons for the termination of the appellants' services in all the appeals are materially similar though the facts to some extent are varying. Civil Appeal Nos, 991 and 992 of 2001, pertaining to Kutchery Bazar Branch, Faisalabad, are taken first.
4.The appellants who were respectively posted as Manager and Incharge Foreign Exchange Department of the Branch in the year 1993-94, were issued show-cause notice/charge sheet on 29.1.1995 by the Senior Executive 'Vice-President. Allegations against them were that between the period 12.8.1993 to 10.3.1994, they negotiated 356 bills amounting to Rs, 759.279 millions drawn on M/s. Tawakkal Limited and their sister concern M/s. Ist Tawakkal Modaraba, against Letter of Credits, issued by M/s. East Mediterranean Trust and Banking Corporation, Turkey (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the "Mediterranean Bank"), out of which, the proceeds of 147 bills representing an amount of Rs, 424.402 millions, had not been repatriated though their date of maturity had passed by much earlier. The charge sheet spelt out the lapses on the part of appellants that resulted into loss to the bank, the main three of which are: "(a) The L.C. opening bank was neither our bank's correspondent nor quoted on Banking Almanac, hence prior approval of competent authority was must for negotiating the bills drawn against such L.Cs., you, on your own accorded approval for negotiation of these bills without seeking the same from competent authority and jointly signed vouchers of 44 bills aggregating Rs, 124.785. As the matter did not come under your purview, you overstepped your jurisdiction by approving the negotiation of these bills.
(b) The credit report of exporters was not obtained prior to allowing the negotiation of such bills which was all the more necessary as M/s. Tawakkal Limited had opened their A/C., in your branch only 3 months prior to negotiation while the 4 bills of M/s. 1st Tawakkal Modaraba were negotiated on the very first day, their account was opened in the professional misconduct on your part.
(c) Though L.Cs. allowed B/Ls with "Received for Shipment" notation but as a precautionary measure and bank's procedure, the subsequent confirmation was not sought from the shipping company as to when the goods have actually been "shipped on board"."
5. The appellants submitted a detailed reply spreading over eight pages supported by documents, the main features of which are that Tawakkal Group was a renowned business entrepreneur of the country at the relevant time and their business had been secured by the senior officers of the bank with great efforts. That the bills mentioned in the show-cause notice were negotiated under the verbal permission/approval of the Zonal/Circle Offices and the Bank's statements regarding these transactions had been periodical by transmitted to the senior officers, who were constantly kept informed of all the negotiation business with the Tawakkal Group. Further that the Foreign Exchange Inspection Team had inspected the Branch on 24.10.1993 and had not raised any objection in their report to the negotiation of the export documents against the L.Cs. of the Mediterranean Bank. On the making of payments against the L.Cs. without the goods having actually been "shipped on board" the appellants explained that the bills were negotiable on presentation of the bill of lading with notation "received for shipment", in accordance with the terms of the L.Cs. which is also permissible under Article 27 of the Bank's Manual of Advances and UM' 400. The above reply was not found satisfactory and hence appellants' services were terminated.
6. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Sr. ASC, appearing for the appellants in C.A. Nos, 991 and 992 of 2001, read out Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and pointed out that the observations made regarding disrepute of the Tawakkal Group, was based on the personal knowledge of the Members of the Tribunal with no documentary support. That even if the Tawakkal Group had later on landed in some financial troubles, at the relevant time when the L.Cs. were being negotiated, the Group's reputation ranked high in the business circle of the country. The learned counsel pointed out that the findings of the Tribunal in para 6 of the judgment that the appellants had failed to follow the fax message of 6.3.1994, is based on erroneous assumption that the charge against the appellants was violation of the said direction, whereas, in fact, no L.C. of the Mediterranean Bank was negotiated after the said date, when the Head Office directed to put stop all such negotiations. The learned counsel had further assailed the observations made by the Tribunal regarding conduct of the appellants that they had negotiated the bills the day the Tawakkal Group opened their account in the Branch. The learned counsel argued that the business credibility of a concern may be otherwise be widely known and would not necessarily depend upon the length of their clientage with a particular bank.
7. We found the above contentions valid. The Tribunal had blamed the appellants for dealing with the Tawakkal Group when, "the market reputation of the Tawakkal Group which was known to almost everyone in Pakistan, who reads newspaper. The party had long earned ill-repute due to many fraudulent dealings in privatisation and other activities". The Tribunal delivered the judgment in the year 1998 and the remarks regarding reputation of the Tawakkal Group may have some truth at that time but there is nothing on record regarding their such reputation during the year 1993-94.
In any case, impression gathered from newspaper reports can hardly be made basis for judicial findings, more so, when no reference was made to any such report.
8. The fax message was 6.3.1994 sent by the International Division of the United Bank Limited, Head Office, Karachi, to all Circle Executives to inform them of the decision that export documents drawn under L.Cs. of non-correspondent Bank/Financial Institutions were not be negotiated and they were to be advised to ensure compliance. The message also advised as to how the cases of prime clients might be honoured after clearance from the International Division. It appears that when the amounts of a number of L.Cs. issued by the Mediterranean Bank in favour of Tawakkal Group, were not realized, the Head Office got alerted and sent the above directions. According to the details of L.Cs. negotiated at the Kutchary Bazar Branch, and for that matter, the other two branches involved, no export bill was negotiated after 6.3.1994. Even the charge sheet did not allege violation of the direction given in the fax message. The Tribunal thus proceeded on the wrong assumption of violation of the fax message by the appellants.
9. Raja Muhammad Akram, Sr. ASC, representing the respondent Bank in the said two appeals, argued forcefully the lapses by the appellants of negotiating export documents on "received for shipment", without production of the bill of lading issued by the Captain of the Ship, with the result that the payments were made to the exporter on the L.Cs. without the goods having been shipped.
Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Sr. A.S.C. appearing for the respondent, Bank, in the other appeals, to substantiate the said contention, referred to the UBL's Inspection Circular No, 27 dated 10.1.1991, issued inter alia to the Managers of the Branches, dealing with the foreign exchange, titled "Irregularities repeatedly committed at branches handling foreign exchange transactions" Sr. No, 46 of which reads as under: "46. Sometimes "Received for Shipment" bills of lading are negotiated which are not documents of title to goods. Exporters should be asked to submit "on Board" bills of lading for negotiation."
10. For accepting the bills of lading with notation "received for shipment", the appellants defended themselves by referring to Article 27 of the Manual of Advances and UCP 400, Clauses 'a' and 'b' of which states:-- "(a) Unless a credit specifically calls for an on board transport document or unless inconsistent with other stipulation(s) in the credit or with Article 26, banks will accept a transport document which indicates that the goods have been taken in charge or received for shipment.
(b) Loading on board or shipment on a vessel may be evidenced either by a transport document bearing wording indicating loading on board a named vessel or shipment on a document stating "received for shipment", by means of a notation of loading on board on the transport document signed or initialled and dated by the carrier or his agent, and the date of this notation shall be regarded as the date of loading on board the named vessel or shipment on the named vessel."
11. The above article permits acceptance by the bank of transport documents stating, received for shipment". It was probably on account of the above article that the charge against the appellants on this account does not refer to violation of any instruction or rule by the appellants as is evident therefrom "Though L.Cs. allowed B/Ls with "Received for shipment" notation but as a precautionary measure and bank's procedure, the subsequent confirmation was not sought from the shipping company as to when the goods have actually been "shipped on board". The charge reproduced above, thus admit that the L.Cs. allowed payments on receipt of documents with endorsement "received for shipment" and that the appellants had failed to take precautionary measures of verifying that the goods had actually been shipped on the board. On behalf of the respondents no instructions or rules had been mentioned that required Managers of the Branche negotiating L.Cs. to ensure the export of the goods. The findings of the Tribunal against the appellants on the afore- stated three points are, therefore, untenable.
12.At this stage, it would be appropriate to advert to preliminary objection raised by Raja Muhammad Akram, learned Sr. ASC, to the maintainability of the appeals on the ground that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is restricted to substantial question of law of public importance, whereas the question raised in the present appeals cannot be termed to be of "public importance" and thus on this score alone, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The meanings of "public importance" in the context of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, under Article 212(3) of the Constitution has been settled by this Court in "Lahore High Court v. Muhammad Jahangir Khan Goraya (1999 SCM R 2117)", where it was held "If a Tribunal exercising exclusive jurisdiction omits to take into consideration material factors or interprets admitted facts in a manner not warranted by law or fails to pass a valid judgment then a question of law of public importance does arise for keeping such a Tribunal within its jurisdiction." In view of the discussion made above, regarding some of the findings of the Tribunal, we have no doubt that the Tribunal had stepped out of its jurisdiction by taking into consideration matters which it was not entitled to take and by proceeding on a totally erroneous assumption of facts. The phrase "public importance" appearing in Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be accorded restrictive meanings as the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank would like us to hold, in view of the very nature of the jurisdiction, which deals, in the present case, with appalls by the civil servants, a restricted defined class, and not the public-at-large. For this reason the meaning of the phrase "public importance" appearing in this Article cannot be equated with the same phrase used in Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which relates to the original general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
13.Before adverting to the contentious issues regarding negotiation by the appellants of L.Cs. issued by non-correspondent Bank without permission of the competent authority, it will be appropriate to now advert to the charges framed against the appellants in the remaining seven appeals, arising from a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. Nisar Ahmad Ansari, Umar Suleman, Fayyazuddin and Zahid Hameed, respectively appellants in Civil Appeal Nos, 441, 444, 445 and 446 of 2004, were at the relevant time posted as second Officer, Manager and Officer Foreign Exchange division, at the Saleh Muhammad Street Branch, Karachi. They were charge sheeted on the same day on 2.5.1994. They were alleged to have negotiated/allowed to negotiate 51 bills drawn by M/s. National Garments (Pvt.) Ltd., Sister concern of M/s. Tawakkal Group, during the period 21.2.1993 to 29.7.1993, the L.Cs. having been issued by the East Mediterranean Trust & Banking Corporation Turkey, which was a non-correspondent Bank and not quoted in the Banker's Almanac. The charge alleged that 16 of the 51 bills remained unpaid after their maturity, resulting in loss of Rs, 32.430 Millions. The appellants submitted their separate replies to the charges, which did not persuade the inquiry officer and thus their services were terminated.
14.Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, learned A.S.C. appearing for Nisar Ahmed Ansari, submitted that the appellant had countersigned only two vouchers as Second Officer of the Branch and further that the amount pertaining to the said vouchers had been realized. He further pointed out that the services of the appellant were terminated just two days prior to his attaining the age of superannuation.
15.Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, learned ASC, appearing for Umar Suleman and Fayyazuddin, referred to the written permission dated 29.4.1993 by the International Division of UBL for negotiating L.Cs. opened by the Mediterranean Bank. The learned counsel submitted that only four bills had been negotiated prior to the said permission. It was pointed out that all the 16 export bills, proceeds of which were not realized, were negotiated after the permission was granted on 29.4.1993. Mr. H.A.
Jafry, learned ASC appearing for. Zahid Hameed submitted that the bills countersigned by the appellant had been fully realized after maturity and added that even the Tribunal found the appellant guilty of omission and thus the termination of the appellant's services was not justified.
16.Appeal Nos, 442, 443, 447 of 2004 have been filed by Zahid Umar Farooqui, Muhammad Feroz and Muhammad Yaqoob, the former two were posted as Officers Foreign Exchange division and the third as Accountant in the Department, Bunder Road, Karachi, Branch. The charges against them also pertained to negotiation of bills numbering 54 between 26.6.1993 and 28.8.1993, drawn by the Sister Concern of M/s. Tawakkal Group, issue by the same Mediterranean Bank, 51 of them without prior approval of the competent authority and three of the Bills Nos, 1613, 1614 and 1615 aggregating 0.252 Million U.S. Dollars were, though purchased on 2.8.1993, after permission was granted on 29.7.1993, but without sufficient guarantee and the bills remained unpaid. The defence taken by the appellants in their respective replies did not find 'favour of the Inquiry Officer resulting in the termination of their services.
17.Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned ASC for the appellants submitted that there was no allegation against the appellant of corruption or of acquiring any financial gain for themselves and the charge was only of negligence and omission. He referred to the findings of the Inquiry Officer which he concluded by declaring the appellants guilty of "willful negligence in safeguarding the interests of the Bank". The learned counsel pointed out that the insertion of the words "he is found guilty of gross misconduct", appears to have been typed later on, as it is in different font from remaining report and below the signature of the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel referred to the correspondence in August 1993 between Hatim Ali, Assistant Vice-President, UBL, International Division and another Officer of the same Department, Masood-ur-Rehman, Executive Vice- President, to contend that negotiation of documents of non-correspondent Banks by the concerned branches were done with the approval of the International Division. The learned counsel contended that the Inquiry Officer had violated the rules of natural justice by not affording to the appellants a personal right of hearing when the show-cause notice expressly provided for the same and the appellant had in their reply opted to exercise the right.
18.Raja Muhammad Akram and Mr. Kamal Azafar, on behalf of respondents referred to the clear written instructions contained in Circular/Letter No, 2107 dated 22.10.1988, advising the officers of the Bank to obtain prior permission/clearance from the competent authority before negotiating L.Cs. issued by the non-correspondent Bank. It was thus, contended that since no prior permission had been obtained for acceptance of the L.Cs. issued by the Mediterranean Bank, which admittedly was a non-correspondent Bank, the appellants had acted in violation of the Bank's instructions. That Hatim Ali, who at the relevant time was Vice-President in the International Division and retired on superannuation just before action was taken against the appellants, was criminally prosecuted but acquitted. That in any case, the permission granted by him, would at best be relevant for the branches and the L.Cs. mentioned in the written permission. Mr. Kamal Azfar, submitted the colossal loss was caused to the Bank by the lapses of the appellants, as they had not checked the credibility of the Mediterranean Bank, which had paid up capital of only US $ 0.5 Millions and eventually defaulted on a number of L.Cs. it had drawn on the concerns of Tawakkal Group.
19.The objection of Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned ASC, regarding violation of natural justice, is adverted to first. The same argument was advanced before the Federal Service Tribunal and repelled by the Tribunal, placing reliance upon "Fouzia Ahmed v. First Women Bank Ltd. (1999 SCM R 1237)", wherein a similar plea was taken up by the petitioner, also a bank employee, who had been dismissed from service. Rejecting the plea it was held that the service rules of the Bank did not provide for the requirement of personal hearing in the disciplinary matters, nor did she raise such a plea in her departmental appeal and had also not requested for personal hearing. Further more, the petitioner had not shown that she had been prejudiced in her defence on account of the personal hearing being not granted. In the case before us, it has not been shown that the Rules require the grant of personal hearing to an employee of the bank in a disciplinary action. Though the appellants had requested in their reply for a personal hearing, the show-cause notice stated, "you will be given an opportunity by the Inquiry Officer to put in your written defence or personal hearing, if so desired by you." The appellants were, therefore, given the option to either put in their written defence or to get a personal hearing. The appellants opted for the former and had given detailed explanation in defence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had also not pointed out as to what prejudice had been caused to the appellants for not being given a personal hearing. The objection regarding personal hearing is, therefore, not sustained.
20.The main contentious issue in all the appeals is the acceptance of letter of credit by the appellants issued by a non-correspondent Bank, whose name was not listed in the Banks' almanac, without prior permission of the competent authority in the Bank. The Bank relies upon the instructions issued by FD Circular Letter No, 2107 of 22.10.1988. The contents of which reads: "DOCUMENTS DRAWN UNDER EXPORT LETTERS OF CREDIT.
Attention of branches is invited to our Circular Letter No, ID:DW:THQ: 687:84 dated the July, 22, 1984 and IS:SVP-11118:86 dated the 9th February, 1986 whereby branches were advised (through their Circle Executives) to obtain prior permission/clearance before negotiating/discounting documents presented in terms of letters of credit issued by the banks not included in our agency arrangements. It has now been decided that our branches may negotiate/discount documents drawn under L.Cs.
Issued by those non-correspondent banks who are listed in the first five hundred banks of the World. Such listing is done by The Banker" a publication of the Financial Times and for convenience's sake: List is enclosed of those which are included in the above category but are not our correspondents. This list of non correspondent banks may be kept on record and branches may negotiate documentary letters of Credit received from the banks without any reference to International Division Head Office, Karachi."
21.The learned counsel for the Bank submitted that prior permission before negotiating L.C. by a non-correspondent Bank was necessary even if such Bank was included in the list of five hundred Banks, enclosed with the above letter. That admittedly the Mediterranean Bank, does not figure in the list and that the circular envisaged written permission. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned Sr. ASC, appearing for two of the appellants, however, contended that the Circular of 22.10.1988, refers to two categories of L.Cs. issued by the non-correspondent banks. The first, mentioned in the opening paragraph of the circular, which can be negotiated only with prior permission and the second, referred to in the following paragraph, are those issued by a Bank included in the list where, no permission was required. He next contended that since the circular does not explicitly required in writing permission, even verbal approval was sufficient. In this context, the learned counsel referred to the Auditor's report, which carries a note of the practice of the Bank to negotiate L.Cs. issued by the non-correspondent banks without formal approval of the competent authority. Reference was also made to a number of other documents indicating implied approval of senior officers of the Bank of the appellants negotiating the L.Cs. by the Mediterranean Bank drawn on concerns the Tawakkal Group.
22.Admittedly, the Mediterranean Bank is not included in the list of the five hundred non- correspondent banks mentioned in the circular of 22.10.1988, whose L.Cs. could be negotiated by the UBL Branches. We do not agree that prior permission would be required in case of non- correspondent bank included in the list attached with the circular in view of the clarification made in para 3 of the Circular empowering the branches to negotiate letters of credit issued by a bank listed in the list without reference to the International Division, Head Office. However, prior permission mentioned in the circular must be in writing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the authority competent to grant such permission is to examine and verify the credentials of the concerned non-co respondent bank. Secondly, the official of the bank seeing permission should also for his own record and protection obtain written permission. Thirdly, in the normal course of banking business too permission/clearance is obtained in writing upon written request. Even in case of urgency, which has not been shown in the present case, where verbal approval is granted, the same is followed by written endorsement. And finally, as would be seen while examining some correspondence regarding negotiation of L.Cs. issued by the Mediterranean Bank, written permission had been sought and granted in some cases. The prime responsibility of negotiating L.Cs. issued by non-correspondent banks is that of the officers of the concerned Branches to whom the L.Cs. are presented. Without prior permission in writing for negotiating such L.Cs. from the Banks not included in the list mentioned in the said circular is in violation of the instructions given therein.
Such Officers can neither shift their responsibility to the Senior Officers nor can they seek protection of their tacit approval. The appellants had, therefore, mis-conducted themselves by not following these instructions, even if their non-observance had not resulted in financial loss to the Bank.
23.Having said, that there are certain documents placed on record, the authenticity of which is not denied by the respondents, which go to show that some Senior Officers of the bank were informed, or were at least aware of the said transactions by the branches. One such document pertains to the Faisalabad Branch; a fax message, dated 18.10.1993, by Anwar-ul-Haq Mirza, Senior Vice-President/Circle Executive, UBL, Faisalabad, to Hatim Ali, Vice-President, International Division, UBL, Head Office, Karachi, which had brought to the notice of the later, the letters of credit of huge amounts issued by the Mediterranean Bank, in favour of M/s. Tawakkal Group and had sought advice as to the standing of the Bank. The tenor of the fax message indicates that Anwar-ul-Haq was also involved in the negotiation of the L.Cs. as is demonstrated by two sentences mentioned in the message, "The export documents are being negotiated by us. We could not find in reference of this bank in the Bank Almanac Addition, 1992 available with us." It seems that no response was received from Hatim Ali and thus a reminder was sent on 1.11.1993. Furthermore the statement of outstanding bills negotiated by the Kutchary Bazar, Faisalabad Branch, under L.Cs. of non- correspondent banks as on 6.3.1994, states that the negotiation of L.Cs. presented by the Tawakkal Group had been allowed verbally by the Zonal Office/Circle Office. This statement has also been signed by the Zonal Head/Circle Chief, thus, confirming the verbal permission granted to the Branch. Another document relating to the other two Branches involved some significance in this context, is a letter of 4.8.1993 by Masood-ur-Rehman, Executive Vice-President/Head International Division, Head Office, Karachi, to Hatim Ali, Assistant Vice-President of the same Division, in which it was pointed out that the later had accorded permission on 29.7.1993 to the Bundar Road Branch, Karachi, and on 30.6.1993 to Saleh Muhammad street, Karachi, to negotiate without permission of the Competent Authority, documents by the Mediterranean Bank, a non-correspondent Bank.
Hatim Ali, was advised to explain the circumstances, under which the permission had been granted. Hatim Ali, responded by admitting that the letters were issued by him to the two Branches, "keeping in view the excellent credibility of the exporter." He goes on to take credit for acquiring business of reputable business concerns of Tawakkal Group. When asked, the learned counsel representing the respondent Bank, were unable to show us any document whereby Masood-ur- Rehman Khan had taken his letter of 4.8.1993 to its logical conclusion. It, therefore, seems that he also felt satisfied with the explanation furnished by Hatim Ali. Another document of note is the report of the Audit and Inspection Division dated 2.5.1994 on "Negotiation of export document of Tawakkal Group, under L.Cs. of the Mediterranean Bank". According to the conclusion, drawn in the report as many as forty branches had been negotiating L.Cs. of non-correspondent Banks and that it could "be safely concluded that such negotiation is being done as a matter of practice."
24. Hatim Ali, retired on superannuation before 6.3.1994, when the Bank realized the loss caused by the L.Cs. issued by the Mediterranean Bank and had put a stop to further negotiation of such L.Cs.
No departmental action was taken against him and it was only after observations made by the Federal Service Tribunal in the appeals of the present appellants that he was criminally prosecuted but that resulted in his acquittal. Anwar-ul-Haq, Circle Chief and Muhammad Saeed Chaudhry, Zonal Chief, Faisalabad, were proceeded against departmentally after direction by the Federal Service Tribunal. We were told that Anwar-ul-Haq was compulsorily retired one gar before he had reached superannuation and Muhammad Saeed Chaudhry, was only reprimanded.
25.From the above narration, it appears that some of the Senior Officers of the Bank, at the Zonal and Circle Offices in the International Division at the Head Quarters of UBL, were aware of negotiation of the export documents on the basis of L.Cs. issued by the Mediterranean Bank, and who had either impliedly or actively approved the practice. Such approval cannot completely exonerate the appellants as we have already held that negotiation of such documents was the prime responsibility of the concerned Branch. However, the conduct of the Senior Officers of the Bank mellows down the extent of culpability of the appellants. If the Senior Officers, whose support encouraged the appellants to negotiate the said I documents, had been let off lightly, it will be unjust to punish the appellants more severely.
26.In this view of the matter, while holding that the appellants were guilty of misconduct by acting in violation of the clear written instructions of the Bank regarding negotiation of L.Cs. by non- correspondent bank, we partially allow the appeals and modify the impugned judgments to the extent that the penalty of the appellants of termination/dismissal from services is converted into compulsorily retirement from the date on which their orders of termination/dismissal were passed by the Authority. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.