HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner while serving in Habib Bank Limited was proceeded against under the provisions of Habib Bank Limited Service Regulations on 10.02.2001 culminating into major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 26.06.2001. Dismissal order was assailed in the departmental appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority on 28.08.2001. Later on the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal in view of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, the appeal was contested by the bank and finally the same was accepted through judgment dated 7.02.2004, operative part of which is reproduced as follows:--- "We have observed that disciplinary proceedings conducted against the appellant were violative of legal requirements as laid down in the law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.6.2001 and the appellate rejection order dated 23.8.2001 are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with effect from the date he was dismissed from service. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to initiate and complete de novo enquiry proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the relevant law within a period of six months, removing the legal and procedural infirmities as discussed in this order. Further retention or otherwise of the appellant in service and payment of back benefits to him shall depend upon the findings of the fresh enquiry against the appellant, if conducted within the tirneframe as stipulated above."
The respondent bank did not challenge the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, meaning thereby the said judgment attained finality. However, do novo proceedings were initiated as per directions of the Federal Service Tribunal were to be completed within six months as per directions of Federal Service Tribunal dated 07.02.2004.
2. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 07.04.2004 under Section 3 and 5 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, allegations were refuted by the petitioner, inquiry was conducted and finally inquiry report dated 06.07.2004 was submitted before the Bank Authorities. Then a show cause notice dated 18.09.2004 under Section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, was issued, which was replied.
3. As per terms of Federal Service Tribunal's judgment, the time for completion of de novo inquiry proceedings was expired on 06.08.2004 and no final order was passed by the Bank Authorities till the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition No. 1743/04 in Appeal No. 601- (L)CE/2001, before the Federal Service Tribunal, stay order in favour of the petitioner was granted by F.S.T., however, during the pendency of CM, the judgment reported as Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v.
Federation of pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602) was announced, the Registrar of the .Federal Service Tribunal informed the petitioner through notice dated 13.07.2006 that his petition has been abated meaning thereby that the stay order could not remain in field and the respondent bank issued another show cause notice - dated 31.10.2006.
4. As the petitioner apprehends re-dismissal by Bank Authorities, he rushed to Civil Court through a civil suit with a prayer that a declaration be granted to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against afresh and subjected to some adverse action on the basis of same charges as were leveled against him originally on the ground of lapse of time fixed by the Federal Service Tribunal and non-completion of de-novo proceedings against the petitioner. On 02.11.2006 interim stay was granted by the learned Civil Judge, which was, however, recalled on 18.10.2007.
5. Surprisingly, the respondent bank through letter dated 04.02.2008 issued another order which shall be advantageous to reproduced as follows:-- "You were dismissed from the service of the Bank vide letter # SAS/TM/RNH/220662 dated 25.06.2001, on the following charges of serious misconduct
1. Misappropriation of Rs. 450,000/- and Rs. 200,000/- total Rs. 650,000/-
2. Borrowing Rs. 450,000/- in violation of Rule No. 34(1) of HBL Staff Service Rules. 1981 from M/s. Royal Engineering, Lahore.
Being aggrieved of your. Dismissal you filed appeal No. 601(L)CE-2001 in the FST-Islamabad wherefrom it was ordered to conduct De novo inquiry in your case, which was conducted by Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry Committee found you guilty of above referred charges. Thereafter, you filed M.P. No. 1743/03 in appeal No. 601(L)CE/2001.
However, consequent upon the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, you filed appeal in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the bank was restrained from taking any action against you vide order dated 02.11.2006.
The above restraining order of Sr. Civil Judge has been vacated vide order passed on 04.01.2008, and, consequently your dismissal letter has come into force.
You are, therefore, relieved from the service cf the Bank with immediate effect."
6. Aggrieved by the order .Dated 04.02.2008, the petitioner filed departmental representation on 16.02.2008 in terms of the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 but with no response and then he filed the present writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.02.2008 was passed in ignorance to the fact that earlier inquiry proceedings were set aside by the Federal.
Service Tribunal through judgment dated 07.02.2004, however, it was left open to the bank to initiate and complete fresh proceedings within six months, this very judgment was neither challenged by the Bank before the Hon'ble Supreme . Court of Pakistan nor was complied with in' letter and spirit whereas another order dated 04.02.2008 was passed by the Bank Authorities..
Further submits that practically the petitioner is before this Court for the implementation of judgment of FST in letter and spirit because according to the spirit of the judgment of the FST the Bank Authorities could complete the process of de novo proceedings before 06.08.2004' and not after that and admittedly the de novo proceedings which were initiated by the Bank Authorities were not completed within the stipulated time i.e. On or before 06.08.2004, hence the further action taken by the Bank Authorities is a clear departure of the directions of the Federal Service Tribunal and this Court can direct the Bank Authorities to desist from such like illegalities and implement the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal in letter and spirit by setting aside order dated 04.02.2008.
Adds that the effect of judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602) is further clarified in case of Muhammad ldrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC (CS)
1332) and according to this judgment of the apex Court the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of Mubeen-us- Salam's case the petitioner had lost its remedy, could not re-agitate either before FST or before any other Court except to file a suit for damages and not for his reinstatement and writ is not maintainable. Further submits that time fixed by the FST for completion of de novo proceedings as six months cannot be termed as mandatory, and non-adherence to those directions have no penal consequences being a directory one, hence the action of the bank through order dated 04.02.2008 cannot be termed illegal. Adds that the petitioner's suit is still pending, thus during the pendency of civil suit, writ is not competent.
9. Arguments. Heard. Record perused.
10. So far the objection of maintainability of writ petition is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner wants to get the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal implemented in letter and spirit through the course of writ and for that reliance can be placed on a series of judgments like Khalid Mehmood v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another (1999 PLC (CS) 558), M.A.
Rashid Rana v. Chief Secretary (1999 PLC (CS) 623), Ghulam Sarwar v. Habib Bank Limited and others (2001 PLC (CS) 198) and Muhammad Siddique Detho v. State Life Insurance Corporation and others (2005 PLC (CS) 946). In the light of these judgments objection of the learned counsel is repelled and the writ is held to be competent/maintainable.
11. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has filed a civil suit which is .Still pending and during the pendency of that suit writ petition is not competent. In response to this objection, reliance can be placed on Mst. Sattan and others v. Group Captain Masroor Hussain, Officer Commanding P.A.F. Station Sargodha Cantt. (PLD 1962 (W.P.)
Lahore 151) and Malik Meraj Khalid v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through its President, through M.E.O., Lahore Cantt. And another (PLD 1988 Lahore 325), wherein it is held, "the institution of suit should not stand in the way of the issue of a writ if, after considering the matter, the Court comes to the conclusion that one should issue."
12. In the present case, the petitioner is ;running from pillar to post for the redressel of his grievance, he was firstly proceeded against under the Bank Regulations, then provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance were invoked, he approached Federal Service Tribunal where he was granted a specific relief but due to Mubeen-us-Salam's case his civil miscellaneous petition was abated and he was left with no other option except to rush to the Civil Court and get the stay order when the stay was vacated the bank authorities restored the order of dismissal of 2001, so in the attending circumstances, the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan and pendency of civil suit cannot become a bar for the disposal of writ petition. So far the present writ is concerned, as discussed above, it is for the implementation of Federal Service Tribunal's judgment in letter and spirit within a stipulated period and in an identical case this controversy was resolved in the case of Zahooruddin Shaikh v.
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission through Chairman, Islamabad (2007 PLC (CS) 959), wherein it is held, "Non-implementation of judgment of Service Tribunal within stipulated period of six months had flouted the directions as prescribed therein-Charge-sheet, show-cause notice and removal order issued after expiry of said prescribed period of six months, were void, non-existent and of no legal value".
Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that rule of master and servant ' is applicable in the petitioner's controversy and hence this Court cannot interfere, suffice it to refer a case reported as Muhammad Dawood and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC
(CS) 1046) a Full Bench of Karachi High Court held, "Rule of master and servant was inapplicable to cases where there was violation of statutory.
Provisions or of any other law---Expression "violation of law" would not be confined to violation of any specific provision of a statute, but expression "law" ought to be considered in its generic sense as connoting all that was treated as law in the country including even the judicial principles laid down form time to time by the superior Courts---Accepted norms of legal process postulate a strict performance of all the functions and duties laid down by law, and include the principles of natural justice, public duty to act fairly and honestly and absence of mala fides in fact and law--- Court; in all such cases, would be competent to grant relief of reinstatement." _ 13. As regards the other objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that subsequent events cannot be made a ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction because after passing the order by the Federal Service Tribunal the bank authorities passed fresh order which cannot be challenged through this writ petition, suffice it to refer a judgment reported as Evacuee Trust Property Board and another v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others (2007 SCMR 262), wherein it is held that under Article 185 of the Constitution, Supreme Court had ample jurisdiction to take notice of subsequent events. On the same analogy under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the High Court has ample jursdiction to take notice of such events, particularly when there is another case reported as Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehr Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 SC 220), wherein it is held that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to shorten litigation, and to do complete justice between parties and mould relief according to altered circumstances in larger interest of justice-- -Discretion in this regard vested in Courts to be, judicially exercised.
14. Even in a case of Chairman, BISE, Gujranwala and another v. Ayesha Maryam (2005 MLD 71), a Division Bench of this Court had held that High Court had ample jurisdiction to look into subsequent events at the time of deciding cases. In addition to this, I may rely on a judgment reported as Managing Director, Pakistan Television Ltd., Islamabad and 3 others v. Sadique Ahmed, Associates Engineer and 2 others (2007 PLC (CS) 1244), wherein it is held, "Despite proper forums exist and remedies available but to avoid time consuming lengthy. Process and to, save precious time of the parties and heavy expenses writ is entertained".
15. Learned counsel fdr,the respondents submitted that in the prayer of the. Writ the claim which is advanced in the arguments is not available i.e. It is not specifically mentioned that judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal be directed to be implemented. To respond this objection, it shall be advantageous to refer a judgment reported as Feroz-ud-Din v. Muhammad Aziz & 22 others (PLD 2005 AJ&K 9), wherein it is held, "Not necessary for the plaintiff to ask for general or other relief which could always be given by the Court if it would think same just and equitable in view of pleadings and evidence thereon".
16. There is another aspect of the impugned controversy that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was not Challenged by the Bank before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan rather the petitioner was reinstated into service. However, the directions made by the Federal Service Tribunal were not complied with in letter and spirit, meaning thereby that the impugned matter became a past and closed transaction for all purposes and in such like situation the case titled Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others v. Mushtaq Ahmed Korai (2007 SCMR 1698) can be relied. In the present case as the Federal Service Tribunal while accepting the petitioner's appeal allowed the respondent bank to initiate de novo proceedings but with a specific stipulation period no order was passed adversely affecting the petitioner by the bank but surprisingly after a lapse of some months, the impugned order was passed, which cannot be treated a valid one rather it shall amount to a void order and in that respect; I can rely on a judgment reported as Yousaf Ali v.
Muhammad Aslam 'Zia and 2 others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104), wherein it is held that if on the basis of a void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same authority or other authorities, the whole series of the orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them, must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal the changed position of the parties is in operation, fall to the ground because such orders have as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded.
17. The plain language of the impugned order which is 'already reproduced clearly reveals that it was passed in haste, independent mind was not applied, the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was flouted/violated despite the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad ldrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC (CS) 1332) categorically held, "12. We will like to reiterate here that whatever was said by this Court in the judgment in Mubeenus- Salam supra applied only to the proceedings in relation to the cases which were pending before this Court (either at appeal stage or at leave granting stage) and, therefore, the cases in which judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal were never assailed before this Court have attained finality.
This Court accordingly finds and directs as follows:--- The' judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal rendered on the basis of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which were never challenged before this Court have attained finality and shall be 'implemented by the concerned organizations without dragging the employees into further litigation."
Keeping myself in the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reported case supra, I accept this writ petition and set aside the order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the respondent Habib Bank Limited. Resultantly, the petitioner shall be held to be reinstated into service as per judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 07:02.2004.
Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. .