This writ petition assails the order, dated 10-3-1981, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service of the National Bank of Pakistan, the respondent herein. The petitioner, Mumtaz Ahmad Choudhary, was in the service of National Bank of Pakistan, as Manager, Incharge Brandreth Road Branch. Lahore in 1976-77. In October, 1977, he was asked to assume the control and supervision of 30 godowns on behalf of National Bank of Pakistan, Civil Lines, Gujranwala Branch located at different places in Lahore. The petitioner declined to obey the order. Soon thereafter huge defalcation and fraud etc. Was detected in case of the aforementioned godowns of National Bank of Pakistan, Civil Lines, Gujranwala. Consequently a criminal case was registered as a result whereof the Manager of the aforementioned Branch and other officers were arrested and tried by Special Military Court. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a tine of Rs. One crore. In the later part of the year 1977 defalcation and fraud were also detected in regard to the godowns connected with Branch of which the petitioner happened to be the manager. He was placed under suspension on 6-12-1977. On 31-1-1978, first charge-sheet containing 62 charges was served on the petitioner. The second charge-sheet containing 18 charges was also served on the petitioner on 8- 8-1978. Replies to both the charge-sheets were submitted by the petitioner denying the charges. A domestic enquiry followed. Ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service on 10-3-1981. He submitted his appeal on 3-6-1981, which was rejected on 5-8-1982.
2. In the meantime, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No.663, dated 16-12-1978. In that case challan has since been submitted against the petitioner on 10-3-1981 in the Court of learned Special Judge Central, Lahore for the offences punishable under sections 420/409/109/468 and 471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 11 of 1947.
The said criminal case is pending. Subsequently another F.I.R. Was registered against the petitioner on 19-3-1985. That case was closed on the report of the F.I.A. As it involved the same offences which were subject-matter of the earlier F.I:R. Of 16-12-1978.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he in his capacity as Officer Grade-II, was governed by the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973 qua terms and conditions of his service but his impugned dismissal has been ordered in utter disregard of the said Rules which are statutory rules and, therefore, he has the locus standi to assail his dismissal by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It has next been urged that he was illegally and in violation of service rules, placed under suspension without any accusation. Long after his suspension he was served with a charge-sheet. He denied the charges but no proper enquiry was conducted. Numerous charges were levelled against him but in spite of his request he was refused opportunity to consult the relevant records. He was not allowed to hate access to the said record. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the rules. He only furnished a long list of interrogatories and obtained his written replies to the interrogatories. No witness was examined against him nor he was afforded an opportunity to produce his defence. It has further been averred that copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer has not been supplied to him before ordering his dismissal. It has been pleaded that his dismissal from service was ordered by the President of the Bank and, therefore, his appeal could be disposed of by the Central Board of the Bank at Karachi but, in fact, he was interviewed by the President who recommended about the dismissal of his appeal and thus this appeal was dismissed illegally.
4. Through the written statement the respondent-bank has resisted the present writ petition and it has been maintained that the writ petition badly suffered from laches and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. It has further been maintained that the dismissal of the petitioner has been ordered after observing all the formalities prescribed under the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973. The petitioner was duly served with the charge-sheet. A domestic enquiry followed as a result whereof he was found guilty. His dismissal from service has been ordered by a competent authority and his appeal was dismissed by the Central Board at Karachi. It has also been urged on behalf of the respondent-bank that on account of misdeeds of the petitioner, the respondent-bank suffered heavy monetary losses. A criminal case against the petitioner was still pending. It has also been averred that factual controversies raised in the present writ petition that no proper domestic enquiry was conducted; that the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to have access to the record and that he was not provided the copy of the report of Enquiry Officer and further that his appeal has, in fact, been dealt with by the authority who ordered his dismissal can be effectively controverted before the Court of general jurisdiction where evidence can be produced by both the parties. It has thus been urged that the proper course for the petitioner was to file a suit instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction has not to enter into the realm of facts.
5. The controversial pleas raised on behalf of both the parties have been thoroughly considered and fully analysed. The impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner was made on 10-3-1981. His appeal has been dismissed on 5-8-1982. The present writ petition has been filed on 26-9-1987 i.e. More than 5 years after the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner. The only explanation regarding this long delay which has been offered by the petitioner is that he remained involved in criminal litigation and, therefore, he could not rile the writ petition earlier. In this behalf, it has been noticed that criminal litigation is still pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the explanation offered by him regarding delay is not a convincing one. In case of Mst. Hawabai and others v.
Muhammad Siddique and another 1987 SCMR 591, it was held that petition suffers from the doctrine of laches and can be dismissed on the question of ]aches alone." Similar view was expressed in 1969 SCMR 942. In S. Sharif Ahmed Hashmi v. The Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another 1980 SCMR 711, it was ruled that writ petition even against void order can be refused if such writ enables the petitioner to circumvent the provisions of a statute of limitation. It was further held that writ petition against a void order may be dismissed if the petitioner is guilty of laches. On the ground of laches relief in writ petition was refused in PLD 1969 SC 942, 1987 CLC 303, 1986 CLC 2046, PLD 1985 Lah. 420, 1986 CLC 515, 1975SCMR4,PLD1969SC211,1981SCMR1090andPLD1983Lah. 47.
5. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on the case of Pakistan Post Office v.
Settlement Commissioner and others 1987 SCMR 1119. 1n this case it was observed that an occasion to meet the point of laches in Constitutional petition arises when a specific plea is taken by the opposite party in a written statement. When no such plea is taken or when taken, adequate time and opportunity is not afforded to the petitioner to meet it, high Court would not be justified in dismissing the Constitutional petition on the assumption that no explanation is offered by the counsel arguing the case.
6. This judicial precedent is distinguishable on merits inasmuch as in the: present case, plea of laches has been specifically raised by the respondent-bank in the written statement filed by it. The petitioner was thus afforded sufficient' opportunity to meet the objection based on the plea of laches. The only; A explanation which he offered is that he remained busy in the criminal case which is still pending against him. This explanation has not been considered to be sufficient in the wake of long delay exceeding a period of 5 years. In these, circumstances, if is concluded that the present writ petition suffers from laches and on this score alone it is liable to be dismissed.
7. As already stated, it has been averred on behalf of the petitioner that his impugned dismissal has been ordered without observing the formalities and procedure prescribed by the National Bank of Pakistan Service Rules, 1973 and that he was not afforded with an opportunity to have an access to the relevant record before submission of his replies to the charge-sheets and that a domestic enquiry was also not conducted properly. These allegations have been denied in the written statement of the respondent-bank. Thus, the writ petition involves factual controversies which can only be determined after recording evidence. In the case of Sharif Ahmad v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1985 SCMR 1372, the High Court dismissed the writ petition by making the following observation: - "Complicated questions of law and facts arc involved in this case which require evidence as to whether the deceased embraced Islam and who are his heirs. The proper forum is the Civil Court.
The petitioner if advised, may seek remedy in that forum."
This view was upheld by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The learned Supreme Court found; "after hearing the petitioner's counsel, perusing the impugned judgment and considering the matter in its entirety, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the above noted view expressed by the High Court, whereby the petitioner has been advised to seek his remedy before a Court of general jurisdiction." Authorities quoted as PLD 1966 SC 802, PLD 1975 Lah. 598, PLD 1973 Lah.
67, PLD 1976 Lah. 919 and PLD 1985 Kar. 315, can also be cited in this behalf.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the present Constitutional petition involves determination of factual controversies which necessitates recording of evidence. This course of action is not permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction and, therefore, the proper course for the petitioner is: B to have recourse to the Court of general jurisdiction.
9. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, this writ petition suffers from laches and is otherwise also not maintainable. It, therefore, must fail and is, accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./M-1367/L