' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---This petition has been filed by Ms. Fouzia Ahmad seeking leave against the judgment, dated 11=5-1998 of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing her appeal. We have heard at length the arguments of Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, and, with his assistance, we have gone through the relevant record.
2. Petitioner joined service of respondent Bank, First Women Bank Limited, as Grade-III Officer in January, 1992, and was posted in the Foreign Exchange Department. She remained posted in the said department throughout her'service till she was dismissed from service by order dated 21-11- 1996. According to the petitioner, on account of her exceptionally good performance as Grade-III Officer, she was granted special increment and that from 1992 up to 1995, she had been graded as "excellent" by the President of the Bank in the A.C.Rs, It is further the case of the petitioner that, on account of her excellent performance, she was given accelerated promotion as Officer G-II w.e.f,, 1- 1-1995 by order dated 10-4-1995. It has been submitted that during 1995-96 the International Banking Division was headed by Ms. Tayyaba Khanum V.P. Who used to report to Ms. Zeba Mumtaz, Executive Vice-President of the Bank. According to the petitioner, one of the functions of the International Banking Division was to enter into forward sale contracts of foreign currency in U.S. Dollars and this business of the Bank was done with dealers/brokers by Ms. Tayyaba Khanum directly or by the petitioner under Ms. Tayyaba Khanum's express instructions and supervision. It was emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that she was not in a position to take any policy decision independently with regard to the foreign currency forward sale contracts.
3. Here it may be pertinent to refer in some detail about the forward sale contracts of foreign currency. These contracts were made by the Bank in order to meet the future commitments of its customers dealing in import and export business. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment has dilated upon this aspect by observing that the importers need foreign currency to pay the price of imported goods as future dates, while exporters bring foreign currency into the country against their exports and to save importers and exporters from unseen risk of fluctuation of foreign currency rates, the Banks made forward sale contracts or buying contracts of foreign currency and the Banks were required by the State Bank to maintain balance in forward sale contracts and forward buying contracts of foreign currency. It has further been observed by the Tribunal that the foreign currency transactions were required to be essentially based upon matching export/import business and could not be made independent of such dealings and any speculative dealings in foreign currency without bona fide business consideration is an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulations. It was then pointed out that the State Bank of Pakistan, according to the size of the foreign exchange of each bank, prescribed specific limits for each bank separately and no bank was allowed to keep foreign exchange balance abroad beyond such prescribed limits and nor it was permitted to make forward sale contracts without equivalent buying contracts exceeding the prescribed limits and that the gap between selling contracts which were not covered with buying contracts and was called "open sale position" was only allowed to the extent of 10 per cent. Of the limit of foreign exchange holding abroad.
4. It is an admitted position, that the respondent Bank had a prescribed limit of US dollars 9,00,000 for holding foreign currency balance abroad and, therefore, it could keep "open sale position" only to the extent of US dollars 90,000 (i.e, 10 per cent. Of the limit prescribed by the State Bank). The charge against the petitioner and her In charge, Ms. Tayyaba Khanum, was that they deliberately used open sold limits to the extent of US dollars 185 million, manifold in excess of the limit prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan i.e, US dollars 90,000. It was also the case against the two officers (including the petitioner) that the above violation could not be detected in time because the said contracts were not recorded in the prescribed manner and deliberately concealed and misreported. According to the case against the petitioner and Ms. Tayyaba Khanum, during the year 1995-96, they entered into several forward sale contracts of foreign currency in US dollars on behalf of the Bank directly and/or through foreign currency dealers/broker/agents and these contracts lacked bona fide business consideration and in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulations and prescribed limits of the State Bank of Pakistan and on account of the oversold position during the aforesaid period, the financial loss caused to the Bank was in the region of about 25 crore.
' According to the case against the two officers the object of entering into such speculative contracts was self-projection, for promotion and reward and this was done at the cost and risk and peril of the respondent Bank. For some time, these contracts had earned profits for the Bank for which the petitioner was rewarded but, according to the case against the officers these contracts were made in secretive manner and in such a way that the same were even not properly recorded and reflected in the relevant books and ledgers of the respondent Bank at the relevant time and that the loss later on incurred was concealed to. Keep it out of the accounting system and reporting channel of the Bank.
' The case against petitioner Fouzia Ahmad was that she was working under Ms. Tayyaba Khanum and that she worked in collaboration with her superior officer in the forward sale contracts and show was equally responsible and could not be absolved from responsibility of violation of the relevant Rules and Regulations and of the loss incurred to the Bank.
5. Both petitioner and Ms. Tayyaba Khaum were charge-sheeted. The petitioner gave reply to the charge-sheet through her letter dated 23-9-1996. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. Both the officers including the petitioner were found involved and ultimately they were dismissed from service of the Bank by order dated 21-11-1996.
' Petitioner filed a departmental appeal dated 12-2-1996 which was dismissed by the Bank by order dated 13-8-1997 whereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 11-5-1998 of the Federal Service Tribunal.
6. On merits, we find no substance in this petition. The main argument on behalf of the petitioner in the departmental appeal, before the Service Tribunal and also before us on merit has been that petitioner was a junior officer, she was not independent in entering into transactions and finalising the deals of forward sale contracts of foreign currency in US dollars; she was following instructions/orders of the superiors mainly Ms. Tayyaba Khanum, Head of the International Banking Division, and regular reports of such transactions were submitted but no objection was raised or any instruction given to the petitioner that such transactions should not be entered into till the loss accumulated to a very high figure. The fact that there was a prescribed limit of US dollars 90,000 for the "open sold position" and there was violation of the prescribed limit inasmuch as the open sold limit was used to the extent of US dollars 185 million could not be denied by the petitioner. This Could (?) has also not be (?) denied that on account of this patent and serious violation of the prescribed limit, huge losses were caused to the respondent Bank running into crores of rupees. In the memo. Of petition filed by the petitioner before this Court, it is admitted that the business of the Bank relating to forward sale contracts of foreign currency in US dollars was done with dealers/brokers by the head of the department, namely, Ms. Tayyaba Khanum directly or by the petitioner though, according to the petitioner, she entered into such contracts under express instructions and supervision of Ms. Tayyaba Khanum. The stand taken before the Tribunal that she did not know much about the system of foreign sale contracts as rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has referred to her reply to the explanation letter issued to her by the bank before the charge-sheet was issued in which reply the petitioner stated that the loss to the Bank actually occurred due to heavy open position in US dollars deals and the Bank's large over sale position in US dollars in the concerned period. From her reply to the explanation letter, the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion that she knew the working of the system of foreign exchange transactions. It has also been pointed by the Tribunal that the main reason behind speculated foreign exchange dealings was on account of the fact that, earlier in 1995, profits were earned by the Bank on such dealings and this led to the accelerated promotion of the petitioner and the financial reward and to her In charge in the Division. Being award of the restrictions placed by the State Bank of Pakistan under the Foreign Exchange Regulations and the fact that such massive dealings in foreign exchange contracts could always land the Bank in huge losses, and entering into such contracts herself also, the petitioner could not escape the responsibility on the ground that she was blindly following the instructions of Ms. Tayyaba Khanum. There is nothing on record that the petitioner at any time pointed out or brought to the notice of the higher authorities in the Bank including the President that Foreign Exchange Regulations and State Bank's instructions were being violated so blatantly. No case is made out for interference on ground of merit.
7. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, raised the following legal contentions in support of the present petition:-
(a) The petitioner could not be dismissed from service without personal hearing by the competent Authority in the Bank before the final order of dismissal was passed.
(9) Copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner.
(c) No subsequent show-cause notice was issued proposed the penalty and calling upon her to show cause against the proposing penalty.
(d) By not affording the petitioner opportunity of personal hearing before the competent authority of the Bank and an opportunity 'to show cause against the penalty imposed upon her, principles of natural justice have been violated.
(e) There has been violation of the Bank's Staff Service Rules and the departmental proceedings stood vitiated on account of such violations. In this context it was submitted that no prosecution witness was examined in the presence of the petitioner and no opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness was given to her; no defence witnesses were called and no defence witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer. Authorised Officer acted as the prosecutor/departmental representative and, therefore, this was a case where the prosecutor became judge in his own cause and the enquiry proceedings were completed in great haste which started at 10 a.m. And concluded at 6-00 p.m. On the same day. Learned counsel for the, petitioner also relied upon following judgments:--
(i) Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government (PLD 1981 SC 176).
(ii) Ghulam Hadi Baloch v. Collector of Customs (1987 SCM R 602).
(iii) Sharafat Ali Nadeem v. Federal Service Tribunal (1987 SCM R 1774).
(iv) Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. (1994 SCM R 2232).
8. The contention that petitioner could not be dismissed from service in the absence of a personal hearing by the competent Authority of the bank before final order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner has no substance.
' Learned counsel had referred to the Staff Service Rules of the First Women Bank Limited. Relevant rules are rules 33,34 and 35. Learned counsel could not refer to any requirement in the said rules for personal hearing by the competent Authority before final orders in disciplinary matters, Additionally, it may be pointed out in the departmental appeal dated 12-2-1996 preferred' by the petitioner against her dismissal from service, no grievance was Made about personal hearing not being granted; she did not request for any personal hearing and it was not her case in departmental appeal that she had in any way been prejudiced in her defence on account of personal hearing not being granted.
The next contention was that copy of the enquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner.
According to the respondent Bank, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and all the proceedings of the enquiry were recorded in writing and the petitioner participated in these proceedings which is confirmed by the fact that each page of the proceedings is also signed by the petitioner. This could not be denied by the learned counsel. Copy of the proceedings have been placed on record and the same show that each page of the proceedings is also signed by the petitioner. The averment in the memo. Of appeal before the Tribunal that copy of the report had not been supplied has been denied by the bank in its parawise comments. It has also been noticed that in the departmental appeal no grievance was made by the petitioner that copy of report had not been supplied. In fact, a detailed departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner dealing with all the allegations/charges against her as per charge-sheet as well as the enquiry report. In the circumstances, no case is made out that the proceedings against the petitioner stood vitiated even if it is to be assumed that report had not been supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel could not point out any prejudice that had been caused to the petitioner on account of copy of report not having been supplied to the petitioner.
The other contention is related to the earlier contentions dealt with hearinabove. It has been argued that on account of not affording the petitioner of an opportunity of personal hearing before the competent Authority of the bank and in the absence of a second show-cause notice before final penalty was imposed principles of natural justice have been violated. Contention regarding personal hearing having not been granted has already been dealt with. As regards the failure to issue the second show-cause notice after the enquiry report, it has been observed that no grievance was made by the petitioner in her departmental appeal about the second show-cause notice not having been given to her or that she has been prejudiced in any way on account of such show-cause notice not being served upon her. It has also been observed that a detailed departmental appeal had been preferred by the petitioner against her dismissal. It has also been noted that the Staff Service Rules of First Women Bank Limited do not require any second show- cause notice to be issued and, in any case, it has not been shown that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of second show-cause notice not having been given to her. In the circumstances, petitioner's plea that principles of natural justice had been violated is without substance,.
It has been contended that the Bank Staff Service Rules had been violated. As observed, we have gone through the relevant rules (rules Nos.33, 34 and 35) of the Bank's Service Rules and learned counsel could not point out violation of any provision of such rules. It has already been mentioned that, according to the bank, the petitioner participated in the entire proceedings and this fact is confirmed by her signatures appearing on each page of the proceedings. Then the petitioner made no grievance in her departmental appeal that any rule had been violated or that any prosecution witness was examined in her absence or that opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses was not given to her or that she had not been allowed to call any defence witnesses or that the Authorised Officer acted as the prosecutor or as a departmental representative. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this contention.
9. Reference has been made to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
However, we find that none of the said judgments advance the case of the petitioner. In Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government (PLD 1981 SC 176) necessity of furnishing copy of the enquiry to the accused official was emphasized and with reference to principles of natural justice it was observed that it was necessary to give opportunity against the proposed action in the light of the finding of the Enquiry Officer.
' In Ghulam Hadi Baloch v. Collector of Customs (1987 SCM R 602) the appellant had been removed from service for absence but in the charge the specific period of absence was not mentioned and, in the circumstances, it was held that the charge was vague and unspecific and this coupled with the refusal to provide an opportunity of hearing resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant and vitiated the order against the appellant.
' In Sharafat Ali Nadeem v. Federal Service Tribunal (1987 SCM R 1774) the appellant had been removed from service and it was found that there was failure of service of show-cause notice and non-supply of statement of allegations and also copy of the enquiry report and, in the circumstances, it was held that the department had not followed the rules laid down in Mir Muhammad's case (supra).
' In Anisa Rehman v. PIAC (1994 SCM R 2232) appellant an employee of PIA had been reduced in rank without any show-cause notice and it was held that the rule of "audi alteram pattern" would be applicable to judicial as well as to non judicial proceedings and it would be read into every statute as its part and that principles of natural justice had been violated.
In the facts and circumstances of present case, no case is made out for interference. In the previous paragraphs, the contentions on the basis of non-supply of enquiry report, non-issuance of second show-cause notice and personal hearing not having been granted by the competent Authority have been considered and it was found that no case was made out for interference.
10. As a result, this petition is dismissed and leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.