' Muhammad Akram Khan petitioner, Senior Vice-President/ Regional Audit Chief, National Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad had filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 30-12-1986 passed by the competent authority whereby he has been awarded the punishment of degradation to lower stage cf pay by two steps under Rule 37(e) ND debarred from promotion for next two years under rule 37(b) of N.B.P., National Bank of Pakistan, Staff Rules, 1980.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner served the National Bank of Pakistan from 1974 onward in various positions. He was superseded and declined promotion. The Head Office Karachi informed him vide letter No,RW /1 Promotion/848894 dated 3-4-1984 N.B.P.That:- "We advise that your name cannot be sent to the Pakistan Banking Council for promotion to the next grade till certain pending matters are decided."
' No details whatsoever in respect of the pending matters was communicated to him. Thereafter, on 18-12-1985 he was served with a charge-sheet containing five charges. He submitted his reply which was not considered satisfactory and it was decided to hold an inquiry against him.
Mr.Shahid Hussain Khan, Executive Vice-President, Inspection Division, Head Office, Karachi was appointed as inquiry officer.. He conducted the inquiry and absolved the petitioner of charges Nos.
1 to 4 but in regard to charge No,5 concerning Foreign Exchange deal with M/s. Abdullah Saleh Al- Rajhi of D.M 15 million observed as under:- "that a formal proposal for dealing with M/s. Al-Rajhi should have been sent to Head Office by Bahrain Office......"
' The competent authority (President National Bank of Pakistan) did not agree with the findings ef the Inquiry Officer and recommended to the Executive Board for awarding the above punishment to the petitioner. Members of the Executive Board agreed with him as a consequence of which he was punished accordingly. The said order is impugned in this writ petition.
3. It is contended that all the charges were belated and none of them was found proved by the Inquiry Officer. The competent authority/Executive Board was, therefore, not competent to award any punishment to the petitioner without serving him with a show-cause notice, disclosing the ground and fact of their agreement with the Inquiry Officer and affording an opportunity to him. He had been continuously representing against his unlawful supersession and illegal imposition of penalty but without any response, it is added. He has made the following prayer:-- "That the order of imposition of penalty dated 30-12-1986 be declared to be null and void and having been passed in the absence of lawful authority restoring all consequential and back benefits to him including seniority and promotion and that his seniority be restored vis-a-vis Respondents Nos.4 to 26 as under:-- ' From Senior Vice-President to Executive Vice President.. . .. 1-1-1982 ' To Director Board of Directors of National Bank of Pakistan...1-1-1988.
4. The respondents have contested the petition. They concede that the petitioner is senior to respondents Nos. 4 to 26. According to them there were serious allegations regarding his integrity in his dealing with the property owners whose property had been obtained on lease for setting up branches in U.A.E. But no inquiry was conducted by the Bank because it was not possible to prove such allegations in a foreign country. Moreover, such an inquiry would have not been in the larger interest of the Bank. Since his performance was subsequently found to have been satisfactory he was recommended for promotion to Pakistan Banking Council in July, 1982 but the Selection Board did not agree. They admit that the Inquiry Officer in his report found the petitioner not guilty of four out of five charges while charge No,5 about transgression of powers with mala fide intention in foreign exchange dealing of D.M.15 million at Bahrain could not be taken up by him. The competent authority after due consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the charge-sheet and reply of the petitioner had come to the conclusion that he should be awarded the above punishment. The petitioner's supersession or imposition of punishment on him was fully justified.
5. Admittedly the grounds of disagreement of the competent authority with the Inquiry Officer were not communicated to the petitioner nor was he afforded personal hearing before the imposition of penalty on him. Although an employee cannot insist on personal hearing at every stage yet the principle of natural justice would require that before passing a final order against him he should be heard. It would be all the more necessary when the report of Inquiry Officer is not to be accepted.
' It is settled principle of law and that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principle of natural justice has to be observed if the proceedings might result in consequences affecting "the person or property or other right of the parties concerned" And this rule applies even though there may be no positive words in the statute or legal document whereby the power is vested to take such proceedings, for, in such cases this requirement is to be implied into it as the minimum requirement of fairness. The principle of natural justice was elaborated in the Universty of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and others v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90) as under: "The requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth." Nevertheless, the general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure "the elementary and essential principles of fairness" as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and "to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice". Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, "in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means" the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the "elementary and essential principles unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to so act."
' The Commissioner of Income Tax Pakistan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman PLD 1964 SC 410 also enunciates the same principle. It was held in this case that the right to be heard is not confined only to judicial proceedings but extends to all proceedings by whomsoever held which may affect the person or property or other right of the parties concerned in the dispute. University of Dacca through its Vice- Chancellor v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1964 SC 90 is another authority on this point.
' In the Province of East Pakistan and another v. Noor Ahmad and another (PLD 1964 S.0 .451) it was observed that although there was no specific provision in the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 entitling member proceeded against, to opportunity of being heard, such member nerverthless was entitled to such opportunity on principle of natural justice.
6. The competent authority should have acted in accordance with the principle of natural justice which by now, in view of the law declared by the superior Courts of this country, is deemed to have become part of law unless its application is expressly excluded. It is by now, well-settled on the basis of strong line of authorities that an order passed without notice and without hearing the affected parties is void and no legal sanction attaches to the super-structure placed on such a void order. The general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that in order to ensure elementary and essential principle of fairness the person sought to be affected must at least be aware of the nature of allegation against him and that he should be given a fair opportunity to put forward his case before any order adverse to his interest could be passed.
7. There is no indication on record to show that the competent authority was conscious of its obligation of serving a show-cause notice on the petitioner against the proposed action. Even the grounds of disagreement with the Inquiry Officer were not communicated to him, He was thus clearly deprived of the opportunity to show the competent authority that the allegations against him were without any foundation.
8. Since the opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner by the competent authority before infliction of ID punishment, the writ petition is accepted with consequential benefits and order dated 30-12-1986 is declared to have passed without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and is set aside.
9. The parties are left to bear their own costs.