HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 28.6.2001 in Appeal No. 2680(K) of 2001 (Mirza Abdul Qayyum Vs. State Bank of Pakistan and others) whereby the said appeal was accepted and the respondent was reinstated in the service of the petitioner-bank with opportunity to the petitioner-bank to hold fresh enquiry and to give opportunity to the respondent to defend himself and the said enquiry was to be concluded within four months period.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent at the relevant time was employee with the petitioner-bank at Quetta as Chief Manager and he was issued show-cause notice which was not replied consequently he was issued three charge-sheets on 3.1.1996 to which he replied denying all the allegations. The respondent, however, did not appear before the enquiry officer, ln the meantime matter was reported to the police and the respondent was ultimately challaned along with other bank employees before the Court of Anti-Corruption. The enquiry officer found all the charges against the respondent to have been proved consequently the petitioner-bank dismissed the respondent w.e.f. 20.6.1996 against which order of dismissal the respondent appealed before the Central Board of Directors at Islamabad on 8.10.1996 which was also rejected. Thereafter the respondent filed appeal before the learned Federal Service Tribunal oh 10.11.1997 which was dismissed on 5.3.1998. The respondent preferred petition for leave to appeal before this Court which was allowed and the case of the respondent was remanded to the Tribunal for hearing afresh on merits. The learned Tribunal after remand heard the case and allowed the appeal as per impugned judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned judgment/order is not legal as order of dismissal of the respondent was based on evidence who was also given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, therefore the same is liable to be set aside.
5. We do not find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Admittedly, the respondent had served the petitioner-bank for more than 42 years and there was nothing adverse on his record with regard to any act of omission or commission or misconduct on his part. Admittedly, the respondent could not put his appearance before the enquiry officer to defend so as to place all the relevant material to controvert the allegations against him because of certain apprehensions of being arrested and humiliated at the hands of F.I.A, and police. The learned Tribunal in the impugned order has also observed that the respondent was due to attain the age of superannuation on 8.7.1996 but he was dismissed from service on 20.6.1996 thereby making the respondent to lose all the benefits of forty-two years of his service which he was to get on his retirement. The Tribunal has not held the respondent not guilty of charges but has only given him opportunity to place all the relevant material of his defence before the enquiry "officer, lt was also stated before us that some of the employees who were also involved in the same scam of misappropriation some of them were found innocent and were acquitted. The Tribunal in the impugned order in para-6 has observed:- "The judgment is fairly indicative of the fact that the mmatter 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, ln these circumstances we are of the view that fair opportunity of 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 afore-mentioned 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 conducted within four months."
7. The impugned order is just and equitable, lt is also observed that the impugned order was passed on 28.6.2001 but till this day no enquiry proceedings against the respondent were initiated though about eight months have passed. Instead of holding the inquiry as observed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have rushed to this Court through this petition. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for, the petitioner, considering that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.