SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.- Through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner, Mr. Arbab Arshad, has challenged the legality and validity of the dismissal order dated 08.12.2011, issued by the competent authority of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP). By virtue of the said order, the petitioner was dismissed from service on allegations including unauthorized absence, alleged misappropriation of Rs. 5,315/-, and commission of fraud by issuing a post-dated cheque.
2. The petitioner was serving as an Officer Grade-II at the National Bank of Pakistan and had rendered several years of service prior to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. A show-cause notice was issued, levelling the following allegations:
1. During posting at NBP, Saidu Sharif Branch, Swat as Sr. Head Cashier, pocketed Rs.5315/- of admission fee of AIOU. The fee was deposited by Dr. Usman Ali for his daughter as an admission fee for which he holds a valid receipt but the said fee was never paid to the University concerned.
Due to his such criminal act, not only one precious academic year of his daughter was wasted, but also brought a bad name to the Institution.
2. During posting at NBP, Main Branch Saidu Sharif and Aboha Branch, committed fraud by issuing post-dated cheques worth Rs.1,595,000/- against the salary account, which were bounced due to insufficient balance in the account. Two such persons who were engaged with you in the transport business and issued such post-dated cheques which were bounced, lodged an FIR against you. Thus found guilty of deception, besides breach of the Bank's code of conduct & discipline.
3. Remained unauthorized absent from duty at NBP Aboha Branch on 26-10-2010 and 27- 10-2010 without any application. Despite being Joint Custodian did not hand over the keys to the Branch Manager, consequently the cash was not opened and the Branch remained closed on 27-10-2010 causing great loss to the Bank and hardships to the general public besides tarnishing Bank's image.
4. Again remained unauthorizedly absent from duty without any application/intimation on 08- 11-2010, and being the joint custodian of the branch, again, cash was not opened, causing closure of the Branch and great loss to the Bank
5. Once again remained unauthorizedly absent from duty without any application or intimation to the Branch Manager w.e.f 16- 11-2010 to 02-03-11, i.e., for 106 days, thus found guilty of breach of code of conduct and Bank's discipline.
3. Pursuant to the issuance of the charge sheet and show-cause notice, a formal inquiry was initiated against the petitioner to examine the allegations levelled against him. The inquiry proceedings were duly conducted by the appointed Inquiry Officer, who, upon conclusion of the inquiry, found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Consequently, vide office order No. HRM&AG/IDW/CUFF/MAR-2788/1641 to 1645, dated 30.11.2011, the competent authority was pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service of the National Bank of Pakistan with immediate effect.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed a grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). However, the said petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. The petitioner thereafter filed a restoration application bearing No. 7-A (13)/13-P, which too was dismissed by the NIRC. The petitioner, challenging the dismissal of his restoration application, approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ Petition No. 900-P-2014. The said writ petition was allowed; the impugned order dismissing the restoration application was set aside, and it was directed that the petitioner's restoration application be treated as pending before the learned Commission for decision in accordance with law. In compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the NIRC heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and allowed the restoration application. However, during the subsequent proceedings, the petitioner voluntarily sought withdrawal of his grievance petition on the ground of opting for an alternate remedy. Consequently, the grievance petition was dismissed as withdrawn.. Thereafter, the petitioner has once again invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court through the instant writ petition, seeking the setting aside of the impugned dismissal order dated 30.11.2011 and his reinstatement into service along with all back benefits.
5. The respondents have submitted their para-wise comments, wherein they have opposed the issuance of the writ sought by the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner was duly charge-sheeted by the competent authority for acts of omission and commission, including the misappropriation of funds, issuance of a cheque which was subsequently dishonoured, and unauthorized absence from duty. These acts, according to the respondents, constitute clear violations of the Bank's Code of Conduct and warranted disciplinary action.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly objected to the legality and validity of the inquiry proceedings. He argued that the charge-sheet and show-cause notice were issued by an officer lacking the requisite competence under the applicable rules. In particular, he referred to Rule 39 of the Staff Service Rules, 1973, which, according to him, vests the authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee, as well as to issue charge-sheets, in the Heads of Principal Offices, but only in cases involving officers up to Grade-II. On this basis, it was contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings are coram non judice, devoid of legal sanctity, and liable to be struck down. The petitioner's counsel further submitted that the petitioner was neither associated with the inquiry proceedings nor afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself. He argued that no witness was examined in the petitioner's presence, nor was he afforded the opportunity to cross- examine any of the witnesses. It was also contended that no final show-cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner, and that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report. These procedural lapses, according to the petitioner, render the inquiry proceedings illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Bank of Pakistan submitted that the Inquiry Officer acted well within the authority conferred by the relevant rules and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. He further argued that the petitioner was provided with a full and fair opportunity of hearing and that it was the petitioner himself who chose not to cross-examine the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner did appear and record his statement before the Inquiry Officer. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the Inquiry Officer, and in fact, during the inquiry proceedings, he admitted both his unauthorized absence from duty and his failure to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,315/-.
7. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the available record has been perused with due care.
8. The record reflects that the petitioner had rendered approximately sixteen to seventeen (16/17) years of unblemished service prior to the initiation of the present disciplinary proceedings. Except for the instant inquiry, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was previously involved in any misconduct, particularly of the nature alleged i.e., misappropriation of funds. The first charge against the petitioner pertains to alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 5,315/--, being the admission fee of Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), Islamabad, during his posting at NBP's Saidu Sharif Branch. In his explanation before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner stated that due to a shortage of staff, he was burdened with multiple responsibilities, including handling government payments, utility bills, and admissions for AIOU. Although the Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner was guilty, primarily on the ground that he admitted the authenticity of his signature on the relevant documents, it is not readily believable to a prudent mind that a Grade-II Officer, with over fifteen years of service to his credit, would intentionally misappropriate such a meagre amount. The triviality of the amount itself reasonably suggests that the alleged act may have resulted either from a rush of work or from mere inadvertence, factors which do not, in the ordinary course, warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The third and fourth charges relate to allegations of unauthorized absence from duty on 26.10.2010, 27.10.2010, and 08.11.2010. In response, the petitioner explained before the Inquiry Officer that he had been suffering from illness, specifically diarrhea, and was therefore unable to attend work on 26th and 27th October, 2010. He further asserted that the Branch Manager had been informed of the situation and was requested to send someone to collect the office keys. As for the absence on 08.11.2010, the petitioner submitted that his late arrival was due to heightened security checks,which were prevalent in the area at the relevant time. The Court cannot ignore the situational context of the time and place where the alleged incidents occurred. The region was affected by militancy, and movement restrictions and security concerns were a common phenomenon. In such circumstances, delayed arrival at the workplace appears to be a reasonable and natural consequence of prevailing conditions. With regard to his illness-related absence, the petitioner produced a witness during the inquiry who confirmed that the petitioner had submitted a written leave application, which was subsequently not accepted by the branch. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the absence was technically unauthorized, the question remains whether, in light of the explanation provided and mitigating circumstances, the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service was justified, reasonable, and proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
9. Now turning to Charges No. 2 and 5. Under Charge No. 2, the petitioner was confronted with the allegation of issuing post-dated cheques amounting to Rs. 1,595,000/- from his salary account, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner admitted before the Inquiry Officer that the cheques were issued in connection with a private business transaction. This admission, in itself, may constitute a violation of Rule 34 (viii), Chapter IV of the Staff Service Rules, 1973 (Discipline & General Conduct). However, it is important to note that the said rule prescribes both major and minor penalties, and thus, the discretion of the competent authority must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and proportionality. As for Charge No. 5, relating to the petitioner's alleged unauthorized absence for a period of 106 days, the petitioner claimed to have submitted an application along with medical certificates covering the period from 24.11.2010 to 02.03.2011. However, this explanation was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer, who found the petitioner guilty of the charge. Subsequently, the competent authority, acting upon the findings of the inquiry, issued the impugned dismissal order.
10. The core issue for determination before this Court is whether the punishment awarded i.e., dismissal from service is legally sustainable and proportionate to the misconduct, particularly in view of the allegations regarding unauthorized absence and the issuance of dishonoured cheques.
It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct established. While unauthorized absence and financial irregularities may warrant disciplinary action, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to ensure that: i. The charges are clearly and properly framed; ii. The accused is afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to defend himself; iii. The punishment imposed is not excessive, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
Upon careful examination of the inquiry proceedings, it appears that significant procedural lapses occurred. Notably, the complainant neither produced documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations nor recorded his statement before the Inquiry Officer. Instead, reliance was placed solely on the written complaint. These procedural irregularities, while not determinative in themselves, cast doubt on the fairness and reliability of the proceedings.
11. While this Court does not overlook petitioner's admitted prolonged absence from the duty, the central concern lies in the quantum of punishment awarded. In the present case, the penalty of dismissal from service appears grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct, thereby offending the well-established doctrine of proportionality. Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner remained absent without proper authorization, the imposition of the most severe penalty, dismissal from service, cannot be justified. The Staff Service Rules, 1973, prescribe a range of penalties, from censure and withholding of increments to demotion, suspension, or dismissal, the latter being reserved for cases involving gross misconduct or criminal culpability, established beyond reasonable doubt.
12. The role of the judiciary in reviewing disciplinary actions is to ensure that civil servants are not subjected to excessive or arbitrary penalties. Judicial review serves to protect procedural fairness and uphold the rule of law, without unduly encroaching upon executive discretion. A key principle in this review is proportionality, the punishment must bear a rational nexus to the offense committed and must not be unduly harsh. Courts also apply the principle of reasonableness, which requires that disciplinary decisions be based on cogent and objective evidence, and not on conjecture, arbitrariness, or extraneous considerations. Equally vital is the principle of procedural fairness, affected employees must be granted a fair hearing, and disciplinary proceedings must conform to the requirements of due process. However, judicial restraint must also be exercised. The Court is not to act as an appellate authority over factual determinations made by competent disciplinary bodies. Interference is warranted only in cases where illegality, procedural impropriety, mala fide intent, or manifest unreasonableness is established. Finally, courts must strike a delicate balance between safeguarding individual rights and preserving institutional discipline and efficiency. While protecting employees from unjust treatment, the judiciary must ensure that its rulings do not undermine the broader objectives of a disciplined and accountable civil service. A robust and fair disciplinary framework is essential for good governance, and judicial intervention must enhance, not weaken, the legitimacy of administrative oversight.
The apex Court in the case reported as 2025 SCMR-708, titled Muhammad Nisar Ismail versus Government of Punjab through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Lahore and others, has held as under: - "Applying the principle of proportionality to the present case, we note that the petitioner remained absent from duty for a total of 48 days. The imposition of a major penalty of compulsory retirement, in our considered view, fails to meet the test of proportionality, as it neither establishes a rational nexus between the misconduct and the severity of the penalty nor Considers less restrictive alternatives. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent of the penalty imposed. However, the petitioner's reinstatement shall be subject to a fresh determination by the competent authority. We, therefore, direct the competent authority, i.e., Chairman BISE, Rawalpindi, to revisit the petitioner's case in light of the principles outlined above and impose a penalty commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
D. Drawing guidance from the judgments cited above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned dismissal order dated 08.12.2011, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct and is thus violative of the doctrine of proportionality. Accordingly, the dismissal order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the principles enunciated herein, and to impose an appropriate penalty, if deemed necessary, that is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct established. It is expected that the competent authority shall conclude this exercise within sixty (60) working days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, strictly in accordance with law and after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.