RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J. --- The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 11.06.2010, whereby the major penalty of down gradation by one step in the present pay scale was awarded to him and order dated 09.09.2010 conveyed through letter dated 18.10.2010 passed by the President, National Bank of Pakistan, whereby his departmental appeal was dismissed.
2. It is contended that that the petitioner joined the NBP as Grade-III Officer. In 1974. After rendering meritorious service with devotion, he was promoted as Assistant Vice President of the respondent- Bank in due course. He continued serving the Bank with his best abilities but thereafter he was deprived of his right of promotion to the rank i.e. Vice President so he made many representations as his juniors had been promoted and was finally promoted as Vice President in '2002. He has been making efforts for eradication of the corruption and wrong doing in the Bank. He also made hectic efforts for recovery of the loans from the defaulters and for this reason the Mafia involved in embezzlement and misappropriation of funds became hostile and made him the target. Finally he .Was victimized and was involved in two cases of unauthorized sanction of loans. He was charge- sheeted. He prophetically pointed out that the loan was not sanctioned by him rather the Manager of Mirpur Branch was responsible for the same. It was also stated that both the loans stood adjusted with full mark-up and the Bank has not suffered any loss. It is further contended that the inquiry was conducted without providing him necessary 'documents and finally he was awarded the major penalty. Ike made representation to the next higher authority, which was dismissed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is 'also contended that he has contended that the penalty without specifying the period during which it will remain operative is against the Rules, that no reason has been assigned for rejection of appeal; that the Inquiry Officer himself framed the charge; that the factum of recovery has been ignored: that the loan was not sanctioned by the petitioner so he cannot be held responsible for any irregularity; that the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice were not approved by the authority; that the Inquiry Officer has not confined to the allegations set-forth in the statement of allegations; that the two cases were substituted for cases initially mentioned in the charge-sheet and that the inquiry was riot concluded expeditiously.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above contentions and has placed reliance on the case-law reported as Member (A.C.E. & S.T.), Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others (2008 SCM R 1165).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has contended that the petitioner was duly charge-sheeted but due to typographical mistake regarding number of the cases, the correction was subsequently made but it did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner; that the petitioner sanctioned two loan cases beyond his competence; that the contention regarding adjustment of the loans is false that the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 clearly provide die penalty of degradation to a lower stage of the pay, which was awarded to the petitioner; that his appeal was dismissed by the President, National Bank after obtaining the comments of all concerned and that the petitioner had caused loss to the Bank and as such the penalty was not harsh by any stretch of imagination.
5. The record reveals that the petitioner was duly charge -sheeted. The statement of allegations was served upon him. After the Inquiry and before the imposition of the penalty, he was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The clerical mistake in the charge-sheet was removed, which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner because clerical mistakes can be corrected at any stage. The fact of the matter remains that the loans sanctioned in favour of M/s. Javed Hussain and Mirza Hussain were beyond the competence of the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the question of fact cannot be interfered in exercise. Of the Constitutional jurisdiction. Rule 36(c) of the NBP (Staff) Rules, 1973, clearly provides the penalty of degradation to a lower stage of pay in his grade. However, the Rules do not provide that this degradation may be for indefinite period. It is true that the case-law cited at the bar was in respect of the Government Servants . (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and is directly not applicable on the cases of disciplinary action under the NBP (Staff) Rules, 1973 but provisions of Rule 36 (c) of the NBP (Staff)
Rules, 1973 and the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, are almost similar so the principle laid down by the apex Court should be applied in larger interest of justice.
6. The impugned orders don't call for any interference. However, the respondent No. 2 should have specified the period for which the penalty would remain in force.
7. For the reasons supra, the writ, petition is partly accepted and respondent No. 2 is directed to specify the period for which the penalty would remain in force. .