' Through this writ petition, Muhammad Rail petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 27.22013 and 27.8.2013 passed by Respondents Nos.2 & 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and his representation cum appeal was turned down.
2. Succinctly put, the facts are that the petitioner was a Pension Payment Cashier. He was alleged to have made the payment of bogus pension vouchers by deceitPul and tactful means of digit tampering. Another allegation levelled against him was that he added two or three months' arrears of pension in the pension vouchers of the pensiopers. His acts allegedly caused a loss of Rs.
1.921 million to National Bank of Pakistan. It was ascribed to the petitioner that he misappropriated this amount in connivance with the outsiders. Be that as it may, the service of the petitioner was terminated, obliging him to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, which ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.2001. An appeal filed by National Bank. Of Pakistan before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2001. A review it ion filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the apex Court by the order dated 30.10.2003. Apparently, the respondents showed their reluctance and offered resistance to the implementing of the order of the. Federal Service Tribunal, as upheld by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, the petitioner had to file W.P. No 10244-2001 seeking to implement the aforesaid judgments/orders passed in his favour. Initially, NBP, the respondent disbursed some amount to the petitioner by way of back benefits, but after sometime, the respondents called upon the petitioner to return that amount paid to him; Since the petitioner has also filed W.Ps No. 8649 and 9089 of 2009, which are sub judice and relate to the implementation of the above-mentioned orders passed by the Service Tribunal and the apex Court, I would refrain myself from delving into the subject any further, especially when the petitioner has also filed Criminal Original No. 1062-2011, which is also pending decision before this Court.
3. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner was charge sheeted in 2010. An inquiry was held and in consequence whereof, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Once again, he filed W.P.No. 2658-2013. It was allowed by this Court by the order dated 22.5.2013. The matter was remitted to the Divisional Head, P & IRD, National Bank of Pakistan, I.T. Chundrigarh Road, Karachi, Respondent No. 2 who was required to pass a fresh speaking order within thirty days, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. The respondents claimed to have complied with the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 2658-2013. It is another matter that they upheld their earlier order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, which had forced him to file W.P.No. 2658- 2013. The latter order of dismissal dated 27.8.2013 is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.
4. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that Respondents Nos.2 & 3 did not follow the order of this Court dated 22.5,2013 passed in W.P.No. 26582013 in letter and spirit. According to him, the fresh exercise undertaken by them was just an eyewash in that they did not make any genuine effort to reappraise the evidence collected by the Inquiry Officer in the earlier inquiry proceedings nor did the respondents take into consideration the material produced by the petitioner, which went a long way to bear out the innocence of the petitioner. He elaborated . That had the relevant facts and circumstances been taken into account, they would have resulted in exonerating the petitioner from the liability pinned on him. At any rate, he submitted that there was no evidence that the petitioner defalcated, pocketed and misappropriated the amount of Rs.
1.921 million. He strenuously argued that neither the inquiry officer nor the appellate authority examined the single person who was alleged to be in league with the petitioner in stashing away the amount in question. He postulated that the petitioner was befooled in the name of an inquiry; otherwise, it was a pre-determined case on the part of the respondents. They had made up their mind to get rid of the petitioner, who had got better of them in the litigation carried out by him with the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner laid a great deal of emphasis on the fact that in disregard of the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by this Court in W.p.No. 2658-2013, no speaking order duly supported by valid and cogent reasons was passed by Respondents Nos.2 & 3.
He wondered at the purpose in sending the case of the petitioner back to the respondents for decision afresh. In conclusion, it was vehemently urged by him that the impugned order fell far short of the requirements laid down in Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the arguments made. By the learned counsel for the petitioner. He supported the impugned order dated 27.8.2013. He drew the attention of the Court to the following conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority: "After hearing you at length in respect of each charge levelled against you and thorough examination of documents/evidence annexed with the enquiry proceedings/report, we understand that you could not give any plausible explanation to the charges. As already mentioned above, you have admitted your criminal involvement in the subject fraud in your hand written statement given to the then Operations Manager of the Branch, duly witnessed by two staff members, expressively, admitting/confessing misappropriation of Rs.
2.000(M) in Pension payment account. You also owned the liability of the, wrongful/fraudulent pension payments by way of repaying the same to the credit of branch sundry deposit account.
Complete detail of the payment and dates provided in the enquiry report are annexed herewith for your ready reference. The inquiry officer held you guilty of the charges. You failed to prove your non involvement in the subject Fraud/embezzlement during the inquiry as well as during the personal hearing."
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, besides perusing the record.
7. Since I am remitting the matter again to Respondent No. 2 for decision afresh, I would refrain from touching upon the merits of the case or dilating upon the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I cannot help observing that the respondents .Failed to comprehend true import of the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2658-2013. It goes without saying that under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, every authority, be it executive or quasi-judicial is under an obligation to decide each and every application and representation made by a person by making a speaking order. And a speaking order pre- supposes that it would be supported by valid, cogent, plausible and tenable reasons which would stand scrutiny. Such an order must be self-contained and I-I self-explanatory. It is pointed out with a heavy heart that a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.8.2013 falls far short of these requirements. It has been taken for granted and assumed that the petitioner failed to give any explanation to the charges made against him. Such a sweeping observation may be made in favour or against any person. The question is, can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon a person by disposing of his representation, by making such casual remarks. It bears repeating that if Respondents Nos.2 & 3 were to adopt such a broad-brush approach to get round the order dated 22.5.2013, what object, if any, was achieved by the aforesaid order. It goes without saying that this Court would not countenance the defying of its orders by the sophistry deployed by anybody.
8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed declaring the order dated 27.8.2013 passed by the respondents to be illegal, unwarranted, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Consequently, the representation made by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Divisional Head, P & IRD, National Bank of Pakistan, I.I. Chundarigarh Road, Karachi, who shall hear out the petitioner, besides bringing on record all the material produced by him in his defence. Only thereafter shall he pass a fresh, detailed order by assigning valid, cogent and tenable reasons in support thereof. The matter shall not be put in cold storage and shall be decided, preferably within two months from, the receipt of the certified copy of this order.