' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED (CHAIRMAN).--- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the contents of the petition, the documents annexed therewith and the contents of the reply- statement and the preliminary objections filed along with documents on behalf of the respondent- bank with assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. In this petition filed under section 33 of the IRA, 2012, the petitioner has assailed the impugned show-cause notice as well as has sought for relief to the effect that the respondents be directed not to recover the staff loan from the petitioner on commercial basis. Further prayed that pending disposal of the petition, the respondents be restrained from passing any adverse order against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
2. This petition was filed on 9-5-2013 which was taken-up for prelimitary hearing on 10-5-2013 on which date the following order was passed by this Bench:--- "Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The contents of the petition and the documents appended therewith perused with the assistance of the learned Counsel.
2. Notice.
C.M.A. No,24-B(30) of 2013
3. Notice.
4. Till next date no final order in respect of service of the petitioner shall be passed.
5. Relist for 24-5-2013."
3. Show-cause notice dated 19-4-2013 was issued to the petitioner (Mr. Abid Saeed Mirza) on the ground that while posted at Consumer Finance Department, Islamabad, he has been found involved in committing misconduct with the following details:--- "You have been found habitual absence from duties and absent for more than ten days without any prior permission from the competent authority. Following details reveal/show number of days you remained un authorized absent from duty:--- Month DatesNo. of working days remained unauthorized absent from duties (excluding Saturdays and Sundays being public holidays)
December, 20123-12-2012 to 27-12-2012 19 working days January, 20131-1-2013, 7-10-2013 to 9-1-2013, 15- 1-2013, 17-1-2013, 23-1-2013, 28-1- 2013 to 30-1-201310 working days February, 20134-2-2013, 6-2-2013 to8-2-2013, 12-2-2013, 14-2-2013, 15-2-2013, 18-2-2013 to 28-2-201316 working days March, 20136-3-2013 to 9-3-2013 18 working days April, 2013 1-4-2013 to 18-4-2013 14 working days 77 working days
4. Reply to show-cause notice (Annexure-F) was filed by the petitioner.
5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-bank that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, as in the matter inquiry proceeding was conducted on filing of die reply to the show-cause notice found to be unsatisfactorily; in which proceeding the petitioner also participated. To supplement his contention, the learned Counsel has referred to document R/2 available at page 49 of the reply submitted on behalf of the respondent-bank. This document is a letter of inquiry dated 25-4-2013 whereby notice was given to the petitioner that inquiry will be held on 30-4-2013, at 10-30 a.m. at Faysal Bank Limited, Regional Office, 15 West-Rehmat Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad. Accordingly, he was advised to be present personally on the said date, time and venue. He was further informed that Syed Mehdi Haider has been appointed as Inquiry Officer. Moreover; the petitioner was asked through this letter that he can bring all documentary evidence /witnesses in support of his plea and on his failure to attend will result in ex-parte proceeding. Further the learned Counsel for the respondent-bank referred to the termination order dated 10-5-2013 (Annexure R/5) available at page 195 which according to him was duly sent to the petition by courier service. Photo-stat copy of courier receipt dated 10-5-2013 is available at page 197 (R/5(a), showing delivery of the article to the petitioner on 13-5-2013, as per tracking document (Annexure R/5(b) available at page-199. It is pertinent to note that prior to the institution of the present petition it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that inquiry has been decided to be commenced against him but this fact has even not been disclosed in the petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this particular stage of time also stated that the termination order referred to hereinabove was received by the petitioner on 13-5-2013 and it is not disputed that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry proceeding.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted with reference to the contents of the written-statement that the termination has not been given effect to by the respondent-bank, in view of the interim order passed by this Bench as the same shall be subject to further order that may be passed in the matter.
8. Notwithstanding the other pleas and preliminary objections taken in reply-statement; it was obligatory for the petitioner to have had at the earliest placed all facts relating to the events and developments taken place prior and subsequent to the filing of the petition such as, for example; the intimation with regard to the date fixed for conducting the inquiry proceeding and requiring him to appear before the Inquiry Officer on the date, time and the venue mentioned in the intimation letter, his participation in the inquiry proceeding available at pages Nos.63 to 77 of the reply-statement, which all contains even the signatures of the petitioner with dates, which documents when confronted to the learned Counsel of the petitioner are not disputed, by filing the miscellaneous application before this Bench seized of the matter but for reasons best known to the petitioner, these facts till date have not been brought to the notice of the Bench by the petitioner nor during submissions even with reference to the reply-statement. It is pertinent to note that copies of all the documents mentioned hereinabove and in the reply-statement were supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 24-5-2013 but till date even no application has been filed by the petitioner for seeking appropriate amendments to be incorporated in the main petition. In the circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear from' the above mentioned facts and the documents brought on record that the petitioner for whatever reason suited to Win, did not disclose about the commencement of inquiry proceeding, his participation in the such proceeding, admission of the charges, submission of inquiry report etc including the termination order which conduct apparent on record as well as; not even disputed; disentitled the petitioner for the grant of interim relief. Consequently the injunctive order dated 10-5-2013 .passed in C.M.A. No,24B(30) of 2013 is vacated and the C.M.A. as a result is dismissed.
7. Let the main case be fixed for arguments on 18-9-2013.