SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-This appeal by Special Leave is against the judgment of the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-6-1976 where--by the Constitutional Petition filed by the appellant challenging his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that for the period of his posting as Assistant Treasurer in the Prize Bond Section of the State Bank of Pakistan from 18-11-1965 to 22-2- 1965 he received a charge-sheet dated 29-10-1969 comprising two specific charges as listed hereunder : "That according to section 11 of the Revised Procedure for Sale and Encashment of National Prize Bonds every alteration in the list P. B. 35 has to be authenticated by the Listers, Checkers and Assistant Treasurer by putting their initials there against. In violation of the above instructions Mr. Bokhari, Assistant Treasurer has made nine alterations (as per list attached) himself in the list P. B.
35 relating to 19th and 20th Draws which fact has also been admitted by him. These alterations do not bear the initial of the Listers and Checkers. He has thus committed a serious breach of Office Procedure/ Directions.
(ii) That Mr. Bokhari, Assistant Treasurer substituted other numbers of Prize Bonds in places of the numbers of Prize Winning Bonds already entered in P. B. 35 with a view to abstracting and did abstract the latter bonds, and successfully claimed prizes in collusion with Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Assistant Treasurer of Quetta Office, thereby unlawfully depriving the Bank of the lawful custody of the prize winning bonds in question as well as the prize money which was to be credited to the Government account. Thus he is guilty of gross misconduct as well as of knowingly acting in a manner highly detrimental to the interest of the Bank."
An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the appellant was required to submit a reply which he did, after getting extensions, on 28-12-1969. An inquiry was held and the report was submitted to the competent authority who dismissed the appellant from service on 19-2-1971.
3. The appellant filed a Constitutional Petition challenging his dismissal from service. The contention of the appellant before the High Court as well as before us is that the dismissal order got vitiated because statutory regulations framed under section 54 subsection (2), clause (j) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, required reasonable opportunity to be afforded before dismissal was ordered. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, reasonable opportunity included examination of the witnesses against the appellant by the Inquiry Officer in his presence giving him an opportunity to cross-examine them, permitting him to lead such defence as was relevant and necessary in defending him and supplying a copy of the inquiry report, issuance of a second show-cause notice, etc. It was according to the learned counsel for the appellant, also a requirement of natural justice. Further, it was contended that there was no nexus between the allegations made against the appellant and his duty during the period under consideration i.e. 16- 10-1965 to 1-2-1971.
4. There were certain preliminary objections raised by the State Bank of Pakistan to the very competency of the Constitutional Petition. The first was that the State Bank of Pakistan was neither a person nor an authority and as such a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 was not at all competent against it. It was further contended that the State Bank of Pakistan wag not performing any of the functions connected with the affairs of the Federation and on that account also a writ or order could not issue against it. The third legal objection to the competence of the petition was that the appellant was not holder of a public or statutory office and consequently mandamus or order of that nature restoring him to office could not issue against the State Bank of Pakistan.
5. The learned Judge in the High Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan was indeed a person being a statutory corporation and was very much engaged in the affairs of the Federation. As regards the third objection, it was held that, if there existed a contractual relationship of master and servant then certainly the Constitutional jurisdiction, as in any other contract, was not available for enforcing the right or claiming the compensation. Further, it was held that where statute or statutory instruments intervened and exercised a controlling influence over such a contractual relationship then in so far as infraction of such statutory rules or instruments was concerned a Constitutional Petition was competent. On merits, however, the learned Judge in the High Court after examining in great depth' the nature of the charges, the defence of the appellant and the manner in which evidence was entertained, considered and dealt with, came -to the conclusion that the appellant had been given reasonable opportunity and .At more than one place he bad accepted what was alleged against him and it was only a matter of inference from facts not denied which formed the basis of the impugned order. On that finding it was held that there was no transgression of any rule or law, no infraction of any of his rights, no denial of protection guaranteed to him.
6. In the order granting leave the specific omissions or deviations noted were the following
(i) Recording of evidence of the witnesses against the appellant and the defence witnesses in his absence.
(ii) Not permitting the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him and failure to summon the witnesses cited by him in defence.
(iii) Failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report.
(iv) Failure to serve on him the final show-cause notice indicating the proposed punishment.
(v) Failure to pass a detailed order of dismissal.
(vi) Rejecting the appeal without affording him personal hearing.
(vii) Contravention of Staff Regulations applicable to him.
7. Regulation 22 of the Staff Regulations under which proceedings were taken against the appellant provides as follows :- "22.--(i) An employee who commits a breach of the regulations of the Bank, or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, or who is convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to the following penalties
(a) Reprimand ;
(b) Delay or stoppage of increment or promotion ;
(c) Degradation to a lower post in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale ;
(d) Recovery from any of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the employee ;
(e) Dismissal.
(ii) No employee shall be subjected to the penalties (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-regulation (i) except by an order in writing signed by the Governor in the case of an officer in Class I and above, or the officer in charge of an office or branch in the case of other employees and no such order shall be passed without the charges being formulated in writing and given to the said employee so that be shall have reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person, as he prefers, and in the latter case his defence shall be taken down in writing and read to him."
8. The procedure actually adopted against the appellant was that the Manager, the competent authority served on him a charge-sheet dated 29-10-1969 containing two charges calling upon.
"To answer the above charges in writing or in person in which case his defence will be taken down in writing and read out to him. Any defence which he may wish to prefer including the list of witnesses he may wish to produce, should be submitted to Mr. B. H. Agha, Deputy Chief Officer, Banking Control Department Lahore who has been nominated as Enquiry Officer, not later than the 11th November 1969. If he does not submit his reply within the stipulated period, ex parte proceedings will be taken against him."
9. By an order of the same date an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the following instructions were issued to him :- "(i) The date and time of enquiry should be communicated to the person concerned in writing.
(ii) Enquiry should be conducted from day-to-day and no adjournment shall be given except for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iii) Statement of the accused should be taken down in writing duly signed by him and read over to him by the Enquiry Officer and certified as such.
(iv) Statements of witnesses named by him be taken down in the presence of the accused and certified as such by the Enquiry Officer.
(v) Every conceivable steps which may be necessary for proper findings or the steps actually taken will be reduced into writing for forming record."
10. The appellant sought extensions in time for submitting reply to the charge-sheet. At the same time he sought disclosure of further information on the following matters :- "(i) Record pertaining to draws 18th, 19th and 20th of Rs. 10 duly checked by other Assistant Treasurers.
(ii) No. Of draws, date of withdrawal of prizes and the names against whom the same have been claimed.
(iii) Copies of the charges framed against Messrs Ghulam Muhammad, Assistant Treasurer and Mushtaq Siddiqui Accountant, their reply to the charges and findings of the Enquiry Officer."
11. The disclosure of information on Items (i) and (fl) was full and to the complete satisfaction of the appellant. As regards the third item, his request was refused "as it has no relevancy with his charge-sheet".
12. The appellant submitted the reply to the charge-sheet. It runs into six single spaced typed pages. The burden of it was that the appellant had reported after unearthing a case of fraud in payment of prize money in respect of ten rupee Bond No. L 399018 on which a case was registered with police. In this case Mushtaq Siddiqui, Ghulam Muhammad and Ayub Butt were directly involved and Mr. Abbasi indirectly. This matter was however hushed up and these functionaries ganged up to implicate the appellant falsely in this case. Lie pleaded that his case could not be separated from that case. His signatures, according to him, had been obtained fraudulently. As regards the specific charges, he pleaded that he followed the prevalent practice and "neither Accountant nor the Assistant Treasurer handing over told me about the amendment."
13. The Enquiry Officer prepared a list of twenty questions arising our of the appellant's reply to the charge-sheet and called upon him "to furnish particulars asked for above and give the names of the witnesses which he proposes to produce. The documentary evidence if any may also be submitted along with his reply."
14. By reply dated 19th January 1970 (over three typed pages) the appellant elaborated the facts, indicated the documents and the identity of the witnesses in support of these facts.
15. The Inquiry Officer addressed written enquiries to all such persons and offices putting across the appellant's version of the facts an c seeking their comments on it. In all cases written reports were submitted by the concerned The record and the reports so received were individually examined in unusual detail by the Inquiry Officer. A sixteen page typed report with a number of appendices in addition was submitted to the competent authority on 26-5-1970.
16. The competent authority afforded personal hearing to the appellant on 25-1-1971 after calling upon aim to "produce any documentary evidence and/or witnesses in support of his defence made out by him in his explana--tion etc." At the time of personal hearing three specific questions were put, to him-all relating to his desire to produce any defence-and his reply which was in the negative was recorded. Ultimately dismissal order was passed on 30-1-1971 and the cryptic office order giving effect to it issued on 1-2-1971:
17. In this factual background the learned counsel for the appellant has taken up the following grounds :-
(i) The witnesses against the appellant were examined and the material against him was brought on the record of enquiry in his absence.
(ii) The appellant was unjustifiably denied access to the record which formed his defence.
(iii) There was failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report which vitiated the dismissal order.
Reliance has been placed on the following decisions : Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco .Co. 1975 SCMR 46.
Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1973 SCMR 455.
Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore PLD 1972 Lah. 699.
Messrs International Laboratories Employees' Union v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1976 Kar.
292.
Riaz Ahmad and another v. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore 1980PLC459.
(iv) Second show-cause notice indicating the proposed punishment was not served at any stage."
18. The first ground is purely factual and is repudiated by the appellant's own statements at various stage. In the concise statement submitted in this Court the following explanation with respect to first charge is given "While doing so petitioner found chat list of 19th Draw, which had already taken place on 15-10-1965 and its result announced on 28-10-1965, had not been checked by the Assistant Treasurer posted in Prize Bonds Section at the relevant time. Petitioner drew attention of Accountant Incharge, Prize Bond Section, seventh respondent, to this irregularity, who directed petitioner to check list of 19th Draw. In the course of checking list of 19th Draw petitioner found wrong enlistment of number of prize bonds of 19th Draw. Petitioner correctly entered number of prize bonds, put his initials on the list and mentioned this fact in the irregularities register prescribed, by Instructions."
The revised rule required that "the entries should be authenticated by the listers and checkers and Assistant Treasurers concerned".
19. In his reply to the charge-sheet the appellant admitted that he did the "job according to procedure in force at that time and neither Accountant nor the Assistant Treasurer handing over told me about the amendment."
20. The Inquiry Officer dealt with this plea as follows :- "In view of the clear instructions on the subject the argument of Mr. Bokhari that he initialled the cuttings and alterations according to the practice prevailing at that time is not acceptable. Any departure from the prescribed procedure is a serious lapse and cannot be termed as "practice in vogue at a particular time."
It cannot therefore be said that there was no nexus between the charges and the finding, and the punishment of dismissal could not be the result on such a finding or on proof of such a charge.
21. It is true that the witnesses were not examined in the presence o the appellant, or in other words, the procedure followed was not of formal trial. Instead, all the relevant questions arising during the course of the inquiry were formulated and communicated to the concerned witnesses or the Branch of the office and reply obtained, mostly in writing and where not so, the replies were reduced to writing. In this manner an unusually detailed record of the points in issue and the replies and record received from various quarters was available with the Inquiry Officer and the appellant was at all stages asked to explain the incriminating factors appearing against him and also whether he wanted to produce any defence. This happened last of all before the competent authority after the inquiry report had been received by him. Such a procedure has to be evaluated in the background of admitted fact that to date there was no allegation that the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority were biased against the appellant or were not acting in good faith or excluded his defence for undisclosed reasons. The exclusion of defence, whenever it took place,) was fully explained, the merits of the explanation for the time being apart.
22. If the test of principles of natural justice is applied to such a procedure it cannot be said that there was a violation of it. This Court more than once examined at length the requirements of the law in that respect.
In the case of. University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad the following law was laid down : "The general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the "elementary and essential principles of fairness as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward 'his own case and "to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice". Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him."
23. In a more recent case Shaukat Ali v. Controller of Examinations Civil Appeal 31 of 1978, decided on 2nd June 1979), the entire case-law on the subject was reviewed for interpreting the requirement of the rule that "reasonable opportunity of showing cause" should be afforded. The contention in that case was also that it meant "that the evidence against the petitioner had to be recorded in his presence, and that the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the witness or witnesses, who had given evidence against him". The Court held : "In the absence of any evidence to show that the action initiated against a student is based on mala fides, it would be quite proper for the authorities, provided they afford a fair opportunity to him to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to his interest, to proceed against him for violation of any rules, and in that behalf the authorities would be under no compulsion to formally charge-sheet him or to examine the witnesses in his presence or to afford him the facility of cross-examining any witnesses"
24. The requirement of the rule (22 of the Staff Regulations) applicable 'to the appellant went a step further in so far as it required that the charge or charges was to be "formulated in writing and given to the said employee" and in case he opted to answer them in person orally, his defence was to be "taken down in writing and read to him". These additional requirements were in fact fully complied with in the case of the appellant. The rule, in other respects, adopted by incorporation of the principle of natural justice. Reasonable opportunity "was to be afforded to the employee for answering the charges, in writing or in person". In other respects, the manner of conducting the enquiry, the reception of evidence, its evaluation, and the determination of issues was left to the conscience and the fair mindedness of the concerned authorities. The Courts while judicially reviewing such administrative action had to ensure that "the roughness in justice does not reach the point: where the Courts ought to intervene".
25. As regards the denial to the appellant, access to certain record and exclusion of his evidence on that aspect of the case it has been pointed out that it was for the express reason that "it has no relevancy with his charge sheet". The appellant wanted to show that Ghulam Muhammad Assistant Treasurer and Mushtaq Siddiqui Accountant had indulged in a more serious irregularity concerning ten rupee Bond. Their case was handed over to the police but later hushed up. It was according to the appellant, at their instance that he was being proceeded against. He also, wanted that the action against him should be similar or more lenient than against them. Evidently such a defence was irrelevant so far as the actual proof of the specific charges levelled against the appellant was concerned and was rightly excluded. As a part of his written defence this plea was examined by the Inquiry Officer by addressing to him questions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, by getting the matter examined in Appendix II to his report and concluded "These extra points examined above are in no way connected with the real issue of abstraction of 9 prize bonds in question". The punishments awarded to Mr. Siddiqui (reprimand and stoppage of increment in both substantive and officiating scale) and to Mr. Ghulam Muhammad (reprimand) were noted by the Inquiry Officer. In the circumstances it cannot be urged with any success that the denial to the appellant of the record of Departmental proceedings against those officials in any manner rendered the inquiry against him defective.
26. With regard to the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report or to serve a second show- cause notice indicating the proposed punishment reliance has been placed on .a number of decisions, already referred, which do not expound a principle of natural justice but instead are confined to interpreting the statutory provision of Standing Order 15, clause (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The specific provision was as follows :- "No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity' to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be in every case of dismissal and the employer, shall institute independent enquiries before dealing with charges against a workman."
27. The stages prescribed by this law are (i) information of the alleged misconduct to the employee ; (ii) opportunity to the employee to explain the allegations against him ; (iii) communication of charges to the employee ; (iv) holding of independent enquiry into the charges at the behest of the employer ; (v) approval of the employer to the dismissal. Such a requirement cannot be transposed in Regulation 22 of the Staff Regulations applicable to the appellant or be considered a part of the requirement of principles of natural justice. Hence this law and the ground based on it is not at all available to the appellant.
28. It was by reference to the office order that it was urged that the dismissal order contained no finding on individual charges, and gave no reasons for the dismissal. The order passed by the competent authority is fairly elaborate (five typed pages) and deals with all aspects of the case. It cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority did not apply their mind to the issues involved or there was a failure to record clear cut finding on any controversial issue.
29. The rule with regard to appeals (rule 23 of the Staff Regulations) provided as follows:- "23. An employee shall have a right of appeal, to the Central Board in the case of an officer in Class I and above, and to the Governor in the case of other employees, if he considers that any order passed by any superior authority injuriously affects his interests. Such appeal shall be sent through his immediately superior officer, who shall forward it to the Appellate Authority with his comments.
Trivial appeals, appeals on matters which do not affect an employee personally and appeals which merely repeat an appeal which has been already rejected shall not be answered. Appeals shall not be addressed personally to Directors and any such shall be deemed a breach of discipline."
30. It will be seen that filing of appeals direct has been prohibited. The appeals are required to be "answered". There is no provision made for personal hearing. Personal hearing was not claimed by the appellant. Personal hearing in appeal is not a requirement of principles of natural justice either.
30. In the circumstances, we find that none of the grounds advanced by the appellant has any merit. His appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.