The petitioner joined as a Cashier in the United Bank Ltd. In 1968. He was promoted in 1974 as Officer Grade-111.A charge-sheet was issued to him by the Assistant Vice-President that he had issued three no-objection certificates relating to import licences for Rs.6,60.000 Rs.4,42,000 and Rs.3,50,000 in the circumstances when no-objection certificate forms were ever supplied to Muridke Branch where he was working, nor the same were got printed locally. Further that he had handed over blank no-objection certificates typed on Muridke branch letterhead pad under his signatures to various parties. It was added that he had not bothered to realise brat Muridke Branch was otherwise not authorised to do foreign exchange business directly. This is, dated 12-7-1982. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet and confessed that no-objection certificates in connection with the import licence for Rs.6,60,000 and Rs.3,50,000 were signed by him in routine but he denied his signatures on the import licence for Rs.4,42,000. In his statement before the Enquiry Officer on 27-11-1983, he "fully denied his signatures on the no-objection certificates referred to above and in cross-examination he took the plea that his previous reply in this regard was not correct because he had not seen the original no-objection certificates and this fact was impossible for him to ascertain from the photo copy". The Handwriting Expert was called and in his report, dated 13-9- 1982 he stated "that signatures on letter, dated 10-5-1980 marked as Q/1 and documents/vouchers marked as S/1, S/2, S/3, S/4, S/5 and S/12 have been executed by Mr. Muhammad Sarwar. Otherwise the alleged signatures of Mr. Muhammad Sarwar can be compared with the admitted signatures and reply regarding N.O.Cs. And other vouchers is in affirmative, however, the alleged signatures on the documents marked as Q/2 and Q/3 are doubtful". The Enquiry Officer came on the conclusion that "in the light of aforesaid circumstances, the charges levelled in the charge-sheet No. ADMD/ZO/AA/1383, dated 12-7-1982 against Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Officer Grade-III stand established but simultaneously it appears that there were no ulterior motives behind the same because the prosecution has not been able to prove any type of monetary benefit gained by Mr. Muhammad Sarwar it is also discerned that this severe type of negligence might be prevailea on the part of Mr. Muhammad Sarwar owing to lack of proper knowledge of Foreign Exchange". This is, dated 14-1-1984. The Vice-President of the Bank, the Zonal Chief, noted that "I have gone through the enquiry report and after applying independent mind I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. As he has not gained any monetary benefit and the negligence was due to lack of proper knowledge of foreign exchange transactions, it is, therefore, recommended that he may be awarded a punishment oaf stoppage of increment for one year and a letter of warning be issued to him to be careful in future and to avoid such sort of irregularities". This is, vide letter, dated 15-1- 1984. The case was put up before the competent authority at the Head Office and they decided to terminate the service of the petitioner with immediate effect. The information was communicated by the Circle Executive to the petitioner, vide memo., dated 21-1-1986. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended firstly, that the competent authority to issue the charge-sheet was the Circle Head and not the Assistant Vice-President who had in fact issued the charge-sheet. Reliance is placed on Staff Service Rules, 1981. It is secondly contended that as the Zonal Head, after perusal of the enquiry report had come to the conclusion and had recommended that punishment awarded to the petitioner by the stoppage of increment for one year and a letter of warning, it was not appropriate for the Head Office to have terminated the services of the petitioner. It is thirdly contended that the proceedings are mala fide initiated by the Assistant Vice- President who issued the charge-sheet as he fully knew that he was not the competent authority to issue the charge-sheet. It is lastly contended that the Bank itself was acting illegally in dealing with foreign exchange business at Muridke and, therefore, if the petitioner had issued no objection certificates, he cannot be blamed therefor.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition is not competent at all because there are no Statutory Rules and the relationship between the petitioner and the Bank are that of master and servant. He placed reliance on Muhammad Iqbal v. Government of Baluchistan and 2 others, 1986 PLC (C.S.) 81 and an unreported judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi in Constitutional Petition No. D-123 of 1983, decided on 13-4-1983 wherein an employee of the respondent-Bank had challenged his retirement but it was held that "Further the petitioner being an employee of the company cannot seek redress for reinstatement by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Reference can be made to 1970 SCMR 40, 1971 SCMR 568, PLD 1974 SC 146". Secondly, it was contended that Assistant Vice-President was competent to issue the charge-sheet and there was no question of mala fide involved. It was further submitted that the Assistant Vice-President against whom male. Fide is alleged, is not even a party to the proceedings and, therefore, the plea cannot be entertained. Reliance is placed, on Fauji Foundation and another v. Shamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457. Lastly, it was submitted that the action against the petitioner has been taken after full-fledged enquiry, hearing and examination of his case by various authorities and finally the competent authority has passed the order which it was legally entitled to pass. Therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Punjab Small Industries Corporation v. Shamim Ahmad Khan and another 1980 CLC 381 and submitted although the Corporation concerned was only an Industrial Corporation but its rules were held to be Statutory Rules and the writ petitioner competent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. The allegation against the petitioner passing final order--There being merit in constitutional petit Court refused to interfere. Muhammad lqbal v. Government of Baluchistan and 2 others 1; PLC (C.S.) 81; Constitutional Petition No. D-123 of 1983; 1970 M R 40; 1971 SCMR 568; PLD 1974 SC 146; Fauji Foundation another vShamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457 and Punjab Small Industries Corporation v. Shamim Ahmad Khan and another 1980 CLC 381 ref.
M. Anwar Sipra for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sair Ali for Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Date of hearing: 21st April, 1986.