SHUJAA T ALI KHAN, J.---- Through this single judgment I intend to decide W.P. No.2358 of 2012 (this petition) as well as W.P. No.2359 of 2012 (connected petition) having commonality of law and facts inasmuch as in both these petitions the petitioners have challenged orders, dated 11.11.2008, 05.12.2008 and 28.09.201 1 passed by the Regional HR Chief, National Bank of Pakistan (the competent authority), Regional HR Chief (A), National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) and the appellate authority , respectively whereby they were demoted from the post of AVP to Officer Grade-I and the appeals filed by them against decision of the competent authority were dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the competent authority in the matter of the petitioners was the President NBP but the impugned orders were passed by an incompetent authority; that Show-Cause Notice as envisaged under section 3(2) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (RSO, 2000) was not served upon the petitioners, thus, the subsequent superstructure was not sustainable; that casual approach on the part of the NBP authorities is evident from the fact that the appeals of the petitioners were dismissed through a single line order despite the fact that they agitated number of factual as well as legal points before the appellate authority .
3. Mr. Omer Abdullah Advocate, represen ting NBP while opposing the submission s made by learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as the impugned orders were passed in the year 2008 these petitions are hit by the principle of laches; that as one of the petitioners retired in the year 2008 and the other in the year 2010, their request for promotion cannot be accede d to; that according to section 10 of RSO, 2000 the petitioners were equipped with remedy of appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), thus, these petitions are not maintainable; that factual questions raised in these petitions cannot be adjudica ted upon in these proceedings.
Relies on Noman Razzaq v. Faryad Hussain Chaudhary and 13 others (PLD 2015 SC (AJ&K) 7), State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others (2012 SCMR 280), Ghulam Mustafa Channa v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others (2008 SCMR 909), Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of .Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and others (PLD 2008 SC 395), Muhammad Aslam Sultan v. Federation of Pakistan through General Manager , Pakistan Railways, HQRs, Lahore and another (2006 SCMR 1465 ), Khalid Mahmood Ch. and others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary ,. Livestock and Dairy Development (2002 SCMR 805), Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 SC 415), Muhammad Latif v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1975 SCMR 217), Muhammad Farooq Zulfiqar v. The President National Bank of Pakistan and others (2017 PLC (C.S.)
870), Umar Hayat Khawaja v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and 2 others (2015 PLC (C. S.)
1331), Umar Hayat Khawaja v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and 2 others (2014 PLC (C.S.)
871), Kokab Iqbal v. Manager National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and 3 others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 876), Muhammad Alamgir v. National Bank of Pakistan through Regional Head and others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 963), Tayyab Iqbal v. Member , (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2005 CLC 1447 ), Democratic Workers' Union C.B.A. v. State Bank of Pakistan and others (2002 PLC (C.S.) 614), Muhammad Tufail and others v. Government of Pakistan and another (2000 PLC (C.S.) 957), National Bank of Paksitan v. Messrs Taufiq Impex Inc. through Proprietor Muhammad Tufail and another (2000 CLC 774), Iqbal Haider v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (1989 PLC (C. S.) 713), Divisional Personnel Officer v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (1987 CLC 1397 ) and Cashier , United Bank Ltd. v. The State (1987 PLC (C.S.)
122).
4. While exercising his right of rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have only challenged their demotion from the post of AVP td Officer Grande-I the plea raised by learned counsel representing NBP that the petitioners are not entitled for promotion after their retirement, is ill-founded; that since the appeals of the petitioners were decided in the end of the year 2011 they rightly approached this Court and that the principle of laches does not impede the way of the petitioners. Relies on Pakistan Defence Officers's Housing Authority and others (2013 SCMR 1707 ), Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another (2009 PLC (C.S.) 19), Chairman, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), Islamabad and another v. Dr. Abdul Rashid, Scientific Officer (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1095 ), Habib Bank Limited through Attorneys v. Muhammad Abdul Samad Khan and another (2004 SCMR 1305 ), Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others v. Koural Channa and others (1999 PLC (C.S.) 1539 ), Zonal Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1996 SC 200), Walayat Ali Amir v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its Chairman and another (1995 SCMR 650), Collector , Sahiwal and 2 others v.
Mohammad Akhtar (1971 SCMR 681) and Bashir Ahmed v. Government of Sindh through Secretary , Home Department and 3 others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1249 ) and order , dated 30.03.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.
No.40249 of 2015 , Muhammad Nawaz v . WAPDA and others.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and scanning the documents, appended with these petitions, I have observed that the petitioners were proceeded against under the provisions of RSO, 2000 according to section 10 whereof an aggrieved person could approach FST after expiry of 60-days of filing of the departmental appeal but .the petitioners in these petitions, though filed their departmental appeal in the year 2008 but did not avail the statutory remedy provided under the law despite the fact that the Apex Court of the country in the case of Muhammad Tariq Badar and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 314) has held that appeals filed by employees of National Bank of Pakistan were maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. A perusal of the replies submitted by the petitioners to the Show-Cause Notices shows that they did not deny the allegations levelled against them rather their case is that certain SOPs were relaxed to encourage the exporters. It is very strange to note that the persons holding important portfolio in the banking sector were flouting the policies framed by high-ups of NBP in a casual manner . The relationship between the banker and customer being of fiduciary nature cannot be allowed to be shattered at the whims of such unscrupulous persons.
7. The apex Court of the country while dealing with slackness on the part of the bank employees in the case of Ghulam Mustafa Channa v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others (2008 SCMR 909) has inter alia observed as under: - "5. From a bare perusal of the portions reproduced above, it is absolutely clear that the High Court had taken into consideration all the material available before it and came to a just and correct conclusion that the question of misappropriation or embezzlement by the petitioner stood proved from the evidence on record and the act of the petitioner in depositing the misappropriated or embezzled amount in the accounts from which he had misappropriated the same would not be considered a mitigating circumstance to allow reinstatement of the petitioner in service of the Bank. The business of bank is based on mutual trust between bank and the customers and further that the bank acts as a custodian of the public money , any slightest doubt or suspicion with regard to its activities and transaction and dishonesty of its employees would shake the confidence of the customers resulting in ruination of the business of the Bank. No exception can be taken to the above weighty observations made by the High Court while refusing reinstatement of the petitioner and ordering his dismissal. A natural corollary to the above would be that the petition for leave to appeal filed against the refusal to grant back-benefits automatically become infructuous."
If conduct of the petitioners is adjudged on the touchstone of the afore-quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, they deserve IC no leniency .
8. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in these ID petitions which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.