JUSTICE (R) JALAL-UD-DIN AKBARJI, CHAIRMAN -Mirza Abdul Qayum Baig, ex-Chief Manager of State Bank of Pakistan in Quetta, was dismissed from service by the following order dated 20.6.1996 published in the Daily DAWN on 4.7.1996:- "STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN CENTRAL DIRECTORATE KARACHI OFFICER ORDER PD No. 137 Mr. Abdul Qayum Baig, Officer in senior Grade-ll (Acting) P.F. Index No. A. 095 (under suspension) was issued the following Charge Sheets in terms or regulation 37 of State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations (1993):- s. No. Charge Sheet No. Regarding 1 , No. PD(HRD-6) F- 26(Q)/36/96, dated 3-1- 1996 Embezzlement/defalcation of 32, 234 pieces of National Prize Bonds of Rs. 100/- denomination valuing Rs. 3,223,400/- And the prize money claimed/obtained thereon.
2 No. PD(HRD-6) F- 26(Q)/32/96, dated 3-1- 1996 Embezzlement/defalcation of 600 pieces of National Prize Bonds of Rs. 500/- denomination valuing Rs. 300,000/- And the prize money claimed obtained thereon.
3 No. PD(HRD-6) F- 26(Q)/34/96, dated 3-1-" 1996 Embezzlement/defalcation of 700 pieces of National Prize Bonds of Rs. 1,000/- denomination valuing Rs. 700,000/- 4 No. PD(HRD-6) F-26(Q) 2959/96, dated 4-4-1996 Embezzlement/defalcation of 200 pieces of National Prize Bonds of Rs. 500/- denomination And 1,500 pieces of Rs. 1,000/- denomination valuing Rs. 1,600,000/- And the prize money claimed/obtained thereon.
5 No. PD(HRD-6) F, 26(Q) 3864/96, dated 9-5-1996 Claim of prize money in his name And in the names of his accomplices on the defalcated/embezzled .
National, Prize Bonds {{TABLE}} In all the above charge sheets he was charged for gross violation of the sanctity/prestige of the office of Chief Manager of the Bank of Quetta And committing acts of abuse of powers vested in him, grave misconduct And wilful defalcation/embezzlement of National Prize Bonds/Prize Money thereby causing pecuniary loss to the Government Treasury. He was also issued two other charge sheets for misstating the facts in the statement of Assets And Liabilities And for unauthorized absence vide Nos. PD (HRD-6) F. 26(CD) 298/96, dated 14.1.1996 And PD(HRD-6) F. 26 (CD) 920/96, dated 19.2.1996 respectively. He submitted his replied to the charge sheets in few cases but failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer when directed by him. He was advised by the Enquiry Officer when directed by him. He was advised by the Enquiry Officer to appear before him at Quetta on 31.3.1996 which he also failed to do. He continued asking for grant of leave/extension in leave on the ground of self illness but did not appear before the Director, Medical Service Department when directed. A notice was published in the "Amn" on 7.5.1996 And "Dawn" English on 8.5.1996 requiring him to appear before the Enquiry Officer in connection with the enquiry And for defending himself within 10 days of the publication of the said notice which opportunity he also failed to avail. Thus the Enquiry Officer conducted ex-parte proceedings in terms of Bank's rules on the basis of the fact all the charges framed against him in all the charge sheets received And found all the charges framed against him in all the charge sheets as proved without And shadow of doubt.
Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under regulation 37(i)(l) of State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations, 1993 Mr. Abdul Qayum Baig (A-095), Officer in Senior Grade II Acting has been dismissed from the Bank's Service with immediate effect (disqualifying him from further employment in Banks And financial institutions) without prejudice to the Bank's/Government's rights to recover the amount of National Prize Bonds' defalcated And prize money claimed/obtained by him. Period of suspension from 19.10.1995 to date has been treated E.O.L.
Without pay And allowances (N.C.T.I).
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, (MAHFOOZ ALAM) STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, DEPUTY GOVERNOR CENTRAL DIRECTORATE, KARACHI.
DATED THE 20TH JUNE, 1996 P.I.D. (KARACHI) Advt. No. 03 (DAWN 4.7.1996)."
2. The appellant filed appeal in this Tribunal on 10.11.1997. The appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on 5.3.1998 mainly on the grounds of retrospective operation of Section 2-A inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 1997 (XVII of 1997), dated 10.6.1997. The appellant preferred petition for leave to appeal in the August Supreme Court of Pakistan And in the {Mina AbduI Qayum Baig vs. State Bank of Pakistan And others) the following judgment was passed on 13.3.2001:-
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN C.J.- This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.1998 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 2680-K of 1997.
2. The appellant had been dismissed from service vide order dated 20.6.1996, as a result of disciplinary proceedings against him in case of embezzlement of Prize Bonds on difference occasions. His dismissal was upheld by the Tribunal inter alia on the ground that the newly incorporated Section 2A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (by Act XVII of 1997) was not retrospective.
To this extend the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ghulam Mustafa Khairati vs. Federation of Pakistan and another (1998 SCM R 1603) wherein it has been categorically held that the above Section 2A had retrospective effect being amendment relating to matters pertaining to procedure.
3. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted to the Tribunal for hearing the matter afresh on merits without being influenced by any observations made by it earlier on the merits of the case."
3. The appellant states that he was the Chief Manager and was over all incharge of the State Bank of Quetta and as wrongly implicated in the scandal of embezzlement of prize bonds money by the staff working in the Branch. The appellant states that he did reply to all the notices but due to fear of arrest by the FIA could not participate in the inquiry proceedings, It was pointed out to us t|pat in this scam 21 officers working in Quetta State Bank wer dismissed from service and filed appeals in this Tribunal which were accepted and with the liberty to State Bank of Pakistan to hold disciplinary proceedings against the appellants afresh. The State Bank of Pakistan proceeded against all the 21 officers afresh out of which those found guilty of charges were dismissed from service and now have filed appeals in this Tribunal which are fixed for regular hearing somewhere in the month of October, 2001.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank submitted that the appellant deliberately and intentionally did not participate in the inquiry proceedings and on one pretext or other absented himself from the inquiry proceedings and, therefore, he cannot now plead that he has been condemned unheard. The appellant has been proceeded strictly in accordance with the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations, 1993. The charge has been established against the appellant and he had been found rightly guilty of the same and, therefore, punished in accordance with the Regulations by dismissal from service.
5. Arguments heard as such. The appellant had served the respondents Bank for about 42 years and there is nothing on record that he was ever reprimanded or punished for any act of omission or misconduct. The appellant joined the respondent-Bank as Clerk and by his hardwork was promoted from time to time and ultimately as Chief Manager in Grade-19. The appellant further submitted that he was due for retirement on 8.7.1996 but has been dismissed on 20.6.1996 and thus all the benefits of 42 years service had been washed away and he is now almost living from hand to mouth without any pension or other benefits which he would, have received on retirement from service on 8,7.1996 the appellant also stated that he is being prosecuted by the FIA for the last 5/6 years with no result.
6. We have perused the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeals No. 30(Q)/97 and other (Muzafar Hussain vs. State Bank of Pakistan and others) decided on 4.12.1998. The allegations against the appellants were the same which are against the appellant in this appeal. He being overall incharge of the office of the State Bank of Pakistan at Quetta. The judgment is fairly indicative of the fact that the matter requires thorough inquiry with full opportunity to be given to the accused officer to explain their position and their involvement in the scam. The respondent-Bank after holding inquiry against the above mentioned appellants found only six guilty of the charges and punished accordingly and 15 others were exonerated of the charges, In these circumstances we are of the view that fair opportunity of 2006 defence is given to the appellant so that he may "be able to defend himself and the result of the inquiry may be favourable to the appellant as it happened in the aforementioned 15 other officers. The appeal is lingering on since 1997 and we have already decided that in the scam fresh inquiry be conducted. Therefore, we will accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 20.6.1996 and consequently the appellant is technically reinstated in the service of the respondent-Bank with the liberty to the respondent-Bank to hold fresh inquiry and give fair opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. We also advise the appellant not to shirk in the inquiry proceeding and make himself available before the inquiry whenever it is ordered so by the respondent-Bank without any excuse. We hope that the inquiry against the appellant will be concluded within four months. The appeal is disposal of according with no order as to cost.
Announced in the Court.