ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---These two appeals i,e,, bearing Nos. 2397 and 2407(K) of 1997 are filed by Fouzia Ahmed and Tayaba Khanum respectively, involve, the same question of law and facts. We, therefore, propose to dispose them of with a single judgment.
2. Having been aggrieved by the same office order dated 21-11-1986, whereby both the appellants were dismissed from the service, on the ground of commission and omission of charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, during their incumbency as dealer (Fouzia) and Chief of International Division, H.0., which caused huge financial loss and damage and thereby impaired otherwise banks' status, inter alia. They preferred departmental appeals against their dismissal orders. Fouzia Ahmed submitted such an appeal on 12-2-1997. The departmental appeal of Tayabia Khanum, however, does not show any date. But both the appeals Were rejected on 13-8- 1997, which have been challenged by way of these appeals before the Tribunal, on the grounds stated in the following paras:--
3. Tracing the grounds of her appeal and working of the International Division, the appellant Fouzia has submitted, that in the year 1995-96, the International Banking Division of the respondent No, 1 was headed by Ms. Tayyaba Khanum, the Vice-President of the Bank, who used to report to Mst.
Zeba Mumtaz, Executive Vide-President of the Bank. One of the functionaries of the International Bank Division was to enter into forward sale contracts of the Foreign Currency in U.S. Dollar. This aspect of business of the Bank .was done with dealers/brokers by Ms. Tayyaba ,Khanum, Vice- President directly or by the appellant (Fouzia) under Ms. Tayyaba Khanum's express instructions and supervision. The appellant (Fouzia) was not in a position to take any policy decision independently with regard to Foreign Currency forward sale. The daily settlement sheet was- prepared by the concerned regularly and after this had been seen and approved by the above- named Vice-President, Incharge of the International Banking Division, the same was used to be submitted to the Executive Vice President Ms. Zeba Mumtaz and then to the President of the Bank Ms. Akram Khatoon.
4. All charges for settlement of matured deals were signed by the appellant (Fouzia) as well as the Vice-President Ms. Tayyaba. The entire business of the Foreign Currency carried out during the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, was in the full knowledge of the Management including the said Executive Vice-President and the President. The appellant being the junior most officer in the set up had no powers to act individually and independently, and on the instructions and orders of the Voice-President, Executive Vice-President and the President.
5. The contracts of sale of Foreign Currency were regularly recorded in a register of the Bank which was not a prescribed one but was maintained in order to have the record of Foreign Currency. This was the procedure in the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and-1996. The Bank, learned substantial profit in the years 1994 and 1995. Consequently all the officers were rewarded. The appellant was granted special increment and accelerated promotion. Unfortunately in the year 1996, on account of devaluation of the rupee, also due to other factor loss was suffered, and the appellant was made a scapegoat.
6. Keeping the above, as a background the learned counsel has pleaded that, the appellant was only junior in the set up and had to work as per instruction of her superior. As such he contended that she was not in a position to take policy decision independently, hence cannot be held responsible, for the loss suffered by the Bank. Besides this there were certain deficiencies. For example the contracts were used to be recorded in the register of the bank, which was not the prescribed one, but was maintained in order to have the record of Foreign Currency.
7. He also objected to the way the enquiry was conducted. She was served with the explanation on 17-7-1996. She was bound to make a reply by 3-00 p.m. on the same day, which she did at 2-30 p.m, whereby she denied the allegations. Then undated charge-sheet was served up on her to which she replied on 23-9-1996. Mrs. Sofia Hassan, was appointed an Enquiry Officer who asked her to be present before her on 6-10-1996 at 10.00 a.m. at the Head Office of the Bank to defend her.
These proceedings were over by 5.00 p.m. in the evening. enquiry report was finalised and signed at 8.00 p.m. Thereafter the impugned order was passed on 21-11-1996 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant brought out before the Bench, a number of lacunae in the conduct of enquiry. For example, the appellant was not given the final show-cause notice. Neither she was heard personally nor a copy of enquiry report was supplied to her. All these according to learned counsel were mandatory under the law. To support his contention cited the number of decisions made by the superior Courts. He asserted that the cheques for settlement of the matured deals were signed invariably by her and Ms. Tayyaba. All transactions in the past, were carried out in the same manner. And this was done under the instructions of her superior. Therefore it is wondered, as to why she being a junior should be held responsible; specially, when, the Bank earned profits on the same mode of transactions, in 1994-95, and consequently she was rewarded, and granted accelerated promotion but now that, the Bank has incurred losses, she has been penalized with dismissal from the service. It was observed, that what happened was not done intentionally. Such a business do involve, the chances of losses. He was of the opinion that, the punishment so awarded to her was unjustified, and prayed to set it aside with all financial back benefits.
9. In addition, appellant (Ms. Fouzia) has taken the following grounds:--
(i) That the appellant has been condemned unheard.
(ii) That the appellant has not been afforded an opportunity to show cause, as sue has not been served with any show-cause notice calling upon to explain her position viz-a-viz the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
(iii)That the enquiry proceedings are vitiated by gross irregularities and illegalities. For example, the Authorised Officer/Authority, namely Respondent No, 3 represented the Management's case herself before the Enquiry Officer who was herself subordinate as such it was glaring contravention of the natural justice and fairplay.
10. Appellant Ms. Tayyaba Khanum, has taken the following grounds:-
(i) That appellant was not supplied the External Auditors' Report dated 29-8-1996, to rebut its finding, although Enquiry Officer's observations appeared to be based upon it.
(ii) That adequate opportunity to cross-examine the management witness was not provided. The appellant too was not allowed to present her witness.
(iii) That allegations mentioned in charge-sheet which was the same as served to Fouzia, were not supported with specific reference of Staff Service Rules, 1989 duly amended in 1993, being violated, ignored or disrespected by the appellant in the performance of her duties assigned to her.
(iv) No responsibility of the alleged loss could be fixed on the appellant in the absence of specific rules and policies to operate and conduct Foreign Exchange dealings and functions. Therefore, the maximum punishment is unjust and unwarranted.
(v) That it is an admitted position that internal audit was not conducted of Foreign Exchange dealing during the last four years. There was no procedure to maintain record of Foreign Exchange Conducts except the ledger record. As such there was no monitory and control system to control the transaction. Hence dismissal of the appellant was not justified under the circumstances.
(vi) That there was no effective and appropriate Management Information System to address and refer exchange forward position. The respondent No, 1 was, however, kept informed about the net exposure of the Bank pertaining to forward exchange contract by the officer concerned who was assigned the duties by the respondent No,1 even before appellant's joining the Bank. The performance of the appellant was appreciated. No reprimand was given or explanation ever called from the appellant till July, 1996. Appellant's integrity or performance was never doubted. All this, therefore, shows that the dismissal order on the point of concealment as well as negligence and misreporting was not sufficient ground for dismissal.
(vii) That all transaction in the forward exchange business are admittedly speculative in nature. In fact the losses during 1996, incurred by Bank, were mainly to devaluation of Pak rupee twice, in 1995 and 1996. Therefore, all non matured contracts were seriously affected as a result thereof. No ill- intention, desire of personal interest to derive gains by the appellant existed, not even alleged by the Bank.
(viii) That the allegation to cross the limit fixed for Foreign Exchange by the appellant was not true.
The (actual position was that the respondent No,1 had accorded written permission of the same vide note dated 11-1-1995.
(ix) That the net position of forward exchange contracts at all time were in the knowledge of the respondent No,1, the ultimate responsibility therefore, for the losses, could not be placed alone on the appellant.
(x) That the charges of tampering of ledger and Bank record including the charge of falsification were not true and are being denied, since the book keeping was not entrusted to the appellant nor any cutting whatsoever.
(xi) That during the course of external audit all record was presented upon their demand and no adverse comments or weakness on functioning of the International Division were pointed out or identified by the external auditors during course of yearly audit in the past. Therefore, charge of concealment of the facts and records from the external auditors is unsupported with specific reference or observation of the Auditors hence not sustainable in law and on facts.
(xii) That appeal made against respondent No, l's decision of dismissal of appellants service from the bank under rules has been rejected by the respondent No,
1. With these submission it has been prayed to set impugned order aside and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service with all back benefits.
11. The respondent's sides on the other hand, filed their written comments. Reflecting on the appeals, it has been brought to the notice of the Bench that the gravity of the offence evident as it has wiped out the entire paid up capital of First Women Bank Limited due to financial damage of Rs,25 crore, caused to respondent Bank. The said damage was not caused in the normal course of normal business dealing on the forward sale contracts of Foreign Currency but were made in violation of (a) Foreign Exchange Regulation (b) limit prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan (c) defined banking procedure without business channel.
12.The object behind the said unwarranted deals was self-projection of the appellant as highest profit earners so that they could get quick promotion and awards at the cost of institution itself.
13.The factual aspects of the grievous financial damage caused to the Bank, have been admitted by the appellants and the same was caused due to deliberate violation of the Bank rules and procedures and could be avoided with adherence thereto as well as by applying due diligent care.
14.Focusing on the nature of transaction, it has been submitted that the forward-sale-contracts of the Foreign Currency are made by the Banks, in order to meet the future commitment of the Bank's customers, dealing into export and import business. The importers need Foreign Currency to pay the price of imported goods at future dates, while the exporters bring Foreign Currency into the country against their exports. To save the importers and exporters from unseen risk of fluctuation in Foreign Currency rate, the Banks make forward-sale contracts and forward buying contracts of Foreign Currency. A prudent Banker is required to maintain balance in forward-sale contract and forward buying contract of Foreign Currency and shall have to maintain square up position as for as possible.
15.The said Foreign Currency transaction shall have to be essentially based upon the matching export/import business and cannot be made independent to such dealings. Any speculative dealing in Foreign Currency without bona fide business consideration is an offence against Foreign Exchange Regulation.
16.The account of such forward-sale-contract are maintained with foreign designated banks abroad which account is called NOSTRO i,e, our account with foreign banks while the accounts of forward buying contract, are maintained by the bank itself which is called VOSTRO account (either account or account of foreign Bank).
17 The State Bank of Pakistan according to size of Foreign Exchange of each Bank prescribes specific limit for each Bank separately. No Bank is allowed to keep F/E balance abroad beyond such prescribed limit nor it is permitted to make forward-sale-contracts without equivalent buying-contracts exceeding the prescribed limit. The gap between selling contracts which are not covered with buying contracts are called "open sold position "and are allowed to the extent of 10% of the limit of the Foreign Exchange holding abroad.
18.The First Women Bank (respondent Bank) has prescribed limit of U.S $ 9,00,000 for holding Foreign currency balance abroad and it could keep "open sold position" only to the extent of U.S $ 90,000 (i,e,10% of the limit prescribed by the State Bank). In the instant case the appellants deliberately used open-s.ld limit to the extent of U.S.$ 185.00 (M) which was manifold excessive than the limit prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.
19.The above violation could not be censored in time because the said contracts were not recorded in the prescribed manner and were deliberately concealed and misreported.
20.The appellant Ms. Tayyaba was posted as Divisional Head of the International Division in Head Office Karachi during the period from 6-7-1992 to 21-11-1996. She was seasoned banker with a banking experience of more than 20 years as having served in different capacities with United Bank Limited before joining the respondent Bank. She was made responsible for all activities and affairs of the said Division. She was responsible to plan, monitor, regulate and supervise the day to day affairs of the International Division and Foreign Exchange relating activities independently in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Regulations, Rules. Policies and instructions from time to time by the State Bank of Pakistan and other competent authorities relating to foreign exchange dealings and the matters allied thereto and was also required to follow-up the established banking norms practices an procedures with due diligent care and prudence. She was also responsible to report the affairs of the International Division to the senior management of the respondent Bank and also to the Central Bank of Pakistan. She was also obliged to ensure maintenance and up- keeping of regular and proper Books of accounts ledgers and record such activities in usual course of banking and also monitor day to day reconciliation thereof.
21 However, during the year 1995-96 she indulged into several forward-sale-contracts of the Foreign Currency in U.S Dollars directly and through Foreign Currency dealers/brokers/agents.
These contracts lacked bona fide business consideration and prudent rational, but also were illegal and ultra vires of Foreign Exchange rules/regulations and the provisions of Foreign Exchange Manuals of the State Bank of Pakistan as well as violation of the standing instructions and directions of the Competent Authorities issued from time to time on the subject.
22. Consequently the respondent Bank was placed with an over sold position during the said period, amounting to U.S. Dollars 185.0 Million and as a result large financial losses to the tune of Rs,205 million occurred to the respondent Bank upto July 1996, which loss was further inflated to the considerable extent.
23 The object was self-projection, for promotion and award. This all at the cost, risk and peril of the respondent Bank. This probably was done because earlier she had earned profit during the year 1995 and was consequently awarded reward. These deals were made highly in secretive manner in such a way that the same were not even properly recorded and reflected in relevant books and ledgers of the respondent Bank at the relevant time. The loss was tactfully concealed; to keep it out of the accounting system and reporting channels of the Bank.
24.Further instead of reflecting the factual position in the Bank's record at the relevant time the appellant opted to place quite different position before the senior Management of the Bank from time to time, whereby considerable profit earning out of the Foreign Exchange deals were indicated. Such false reporting/statements/sheets were prepared and signed and authenticated by the appellant.
25.The appellant Ms. Fouzia was working under appellant Ms. Tayyaba. She was working in collaboration with her superior in the forward sale contracts. So she was equally responsible and cannot be absolved from the responsibility of loss incurred to the Bank. His plea that she acted as a contract dealer under the instructions of Ms. Tayyaba is not accepted. She failed to give any explanation as to why she made the forward sale contracts beyond limit prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan nor she could explain the reason of such heavy speculative transactions without matching import/export business.
26.Both the appellants are responsible for the damage caused to the bank and were issued a letter of explanation on 31-7-1996. They did make the replies but their replies were not found satisfactory. Therefore, they were served upon charge sheets, which contained as many as seven charges. Each charge was substantiated with specific instance and duly supported with relevant documents.
27. The charge sheets were replied by both the appellants. The replies of these charges given by them were either cursory or evasive or some even denied. As such, they failed to rebut or refute specific charges. They did not give any comment on the particularly instances given in the charge- sheets and document attached thereto. They did not even explain the reasons for violation of the rules and limits prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.
28.In pursuance of the said charge-sheets and their replies and detailed enquiry was conducted by Senior Executive of the Bank. The enquiry was fully participated by the appellants, and enquiry proceedings were duly countersigned by them. The.. appellants also cross-examined the Management's representatives The report was finalized. It was established in the report, that the appellants had committed offence, with deliberate intention, as the appellants were fully aware of Foreign Exchange regulations, rules, procedures and limits prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan, and had experience of the past devaluation and were fully aware of the consequences of such illegal indulgence. It was also clearly brought out that the damage was not caused due to usual business transaction but rather to the excessive speculative transactions.
29.The charges of concealment, misreporting, falsification tampering of Bank's recored were also proved.
30.The appellants were, therefore, awarded major penalty of dismissal from the service. This penalty was in-commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The proceedings were conducted according to Rules 33 and 35 of the Staff Services Rules of the Bank. The appellants aggrieved by their dismissal orders, preferred appeals under Rule 36 of the Staff Service rules, which were considered by the Board of Directors, and found them unsatisfactory and were dismissed on 30-7- 1997.
31.The respondents have inter alia, taken the point of time limitation in their written objections.
According to them the appellants have challenged the original orders of their dismissal. They should have come to the Tribunal within prescribed time and without waiting for reply from the Board of Directors. With these submissions it has been prayed to dismisss the appeals.
32.The other objections that the appellants were not provided full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings has been rebutted vehemently. They did participate.
33.Their stand that "all transactions in Foreign Exchange are speculative in nature", is highly objectionable. It has been observed as a matter of fact speculative dealing in Foreign Exchange is an offence under the relevant rules, and this is very much in the knowledge of the appellants.
34.That there is no procedure or policy relating to Foreign Exchange business currently in that Bank, position taken by the appellants has been vehemently controverted, by the respondents. It has been pointed out that there are elaborate instructions and circulars, rules and regulations, which should have been adhered to by the appellant. The holding limit which was prescribed by State Bank of Pakistan at dollars 9 lacs, and for open position permissible to the extent of 10% at Rs,90,000 was crossed, as such violated. Appellant (Fouzia) fully collaborated with the then in charge of International Division of Bank in all above mentioned manner and widely indulged into speculative dealing in the Foreign- Exchange Regulations, Rules and instructions and has not only caused unprecedented financial losses to the Bank but also exposed the bank as offender of the Foreign Exchange Regulations, Rules & Procedures and instructions contained in the Foreign Exchange Manual of State Bank of Pakistan or those issued from time to time on the subject.
35.Although in February 1996, the loss was over Rs,100 million, but the appellant (Fouzia) prepared revaluation sheet in such a manner that it reflected profit instead of loss by falsifying the bank record. For example the account of American Express Bank's NOSTRO balance of Rs,79,384,629.97 was extracted in such a manner that actual balance of Rs,242,384,629.97 could be concealed.
36.Subsequently a detailed enquiry was instituted against them. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry impartially. The proceedings of the enquiry were recorded in writing. The appellants were participated in those proceedings, which signed and, verified and endorsed by them. In these proceedings, the appellants were found guilty as they admitted almost all the charges levelled against them. Therefore, they were awarded the punishment of dismissal from the service of Bank, which was conveyed to them vide letter dated 21-11-1996.
37.The appellants being aggrieved from the aforesaid dismissal orders preferred departmental appeals before the Board of Directors Of the Bank, who while in a meeting held on 30-7-1997 rejected their appeals to which the appellants were informed.
38.Yet another objection raised by the appellants vide their memo. of the appeals has been replied by the respondents. e.g., the allegation that the appellants were condemned unheard has been rebutted. It is stated that they were heard personally. They were also afforded opportunity to defend themselves before the Enquiry Officer. They were allowed to cross-examine the witness and were allowed to produce all documentary evidence. It is vehemently denied if any flaw was left in the conduct of the enquiry against the appellants.
39.The respondents do not agree with the appellant's being innocent, ignorant and indifferent with day to day affairs of the International Division, particularly relating to the said Foreign Exchange deals.
40.It has also been denied if there was no authentic system of recording, as the same is functioning even now successfully in the Bank. The loss it has been observed was caused because of non-compliance with the prescribed formalities and procedures by the appellants and collaborators.
41.We have heard the parties and perused the record.
42.We find the moot point is transactions made of the Foreign Exchange. The contention of the appellants is that forward sale contract of Foreign Currency was of speculative nature, and involved risk, and due to this factor, the Bank suffered losses. This loss was greatly created by the massive devaluation in 1995. This is controverted by the respondents. It has been brought out by the respondent, that forward sale-contract of Foreign Exchange are made by the Bank to meet the future commitments of the Bank's customers, dealing with export and import business. As such, such transactions have business nature. The importers had Foreign Exchange to pay the prices of imported goods at future date, while the exporters bring Foreign Exchange Currency in the country against exports. To save them from unseen risk and fluctuation in rate of Foreign Currency, the Bank make foreign sale contract and forward buying contract in Foreign Currency. A banker, has to maintain balance between the two; as much as possible. The Foreign Currency transactions have to be essentially based on the matching export/imports business and cannot be made independent to such business. dealing.
43.The gap between selling contract which are not covered with buying contract are called "open sold position". The State Bank of Pakistan prescribes specific limit for each bank separately for forward-sale-contract of Foreign Exchange according to size of its Foreign Exchange Business. No bank is allowed to keep this gape beyond that limit. Nor it is permitted to make forward-sale- contract without buying contracts exceeding the prescribed limit.
44.The perusal of the State Bank's letter dated 13-2-1995 reveals that the State Bank, prescribed said limit to the tune of 9 lacs in the case of Respondent Bank. And' its 10% was fixed for open sold position i,e, equivalent 90,000 dollars for Foreign Exchange hold. It is although, true that, the appellant Tayyaba, wrote a note, dated January 1995, to the President of the Bank to approve the said limit upto 1.5. million. This was agreed in principle by the President with the condition to ensure "no excess balance are maintained". Subsequently this request was not entertained by the State Bank.
45.However, the appellant Ms. Tayyaba in collaboration with Fouzia indulged in unwarranted sale contracts of U.S. Dollar in speculative manner, as result, open-sold limit went to the extent of U.S. Dollars 185 million with many fold excessive than the limit prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.
As such the limit prescribed by the State Bank was violated.
46.State Bank's letter dated 20-11-1995, which was addressed to Ms. Tayyaba, as a Vice-President of Bank, contained warning that Foreign Currency balance, held abroad was in excess of limit prescribed by the State Bank and therefore, she was asked to explain the reasons thereof. Another State Bank's letter dated 16-12-1995 is placed on the file, whereby appellant Ms. Tayyaba has been asked to explain the reason for excess over the limit.
47. From the above, it comes out clearly that appellants indulged in excessive, foreign-sale- contracts. As a result, they over stepped the limit prescribed by the State Bank. And this prescribed limit suggests, that the appellants were not at liberty to cross limit, as it was for "open sold position" rather for the speculative purposes. From it follows, that banks were allowed to deal with such transactions from business point of view rather than speculative point of view i,e, why the State Bank asked for reasons for excess, caused in the Bank from the appellant Mst. Tayyaba. And this excessive forward sale transaction of the Foreign Exchange resulted in huge losses to the Bank, although, the appellants, blamed the devaluation of Pak rupee, in 1995. Whatever the position, we have no alternative but; to subscribe to the view of the respondents, that the forward-sale transaction in Foreign Currency was meant for business purposes, rather than for speculative purpose, as has been frankly expressed by the appellants. Such transactions are violation of the Foreign Exchange rules and the banks are prevented from indulging in such practices, as has been brought out by the respondents. This has resulted in a huge loss of the respondent Bank, and threatened its very existence. To hide the such a huge loss, the appellants indulged in such action which were wrong and illegal and ultimately a resulting in allegations against the appellants. These allegations are:--
(i) Unwarranted forwards sale of US Dollars in the speculative manner and causing huge financial loss to the Bank.
(ii) Violation of the Foreign Exchange Limit.
(iii) Concealment of facts.
(iv) Falsification of the Bank record.
(v) Tampering of Bank ledger and record.
(vi) Misreporting.
(vii) Negligence.
48. Besides these it has also been established that the appellants violated:
(a) the limit prescribed by the State Bank;
(b) Foreign Exchange Regulation;
(c) banking procedure;
(d) without channel; and admitted by the appellants; that she did the tempering.
49. Appellant Ms. Tayyaba has pointed out that she and her staff did not have the required training.
However, it is brought out by the respondents, that she herself was heading the training department, and had ample opportunity to get everyone trained including herself. Moreover, prior to joining the respondent Bank she had the experience of 15 years in the various fields including the Foreign Exchange. All this shows, that her complaint is totally groundless and such has not force behind it.
50. She also complaints that there was no accounting and procedures, which have already been rebutted by the respondents vide their comments. She also laments that there was no guide lines available. One would wonder if her past experience was of no use. According to her she lacked experience of running Foreign Exchange treasury. There was no provision of internal audit system.
Nor was there any exchange manual. All these points have been rebutted by the respondent.
51. Similarly appellant Ms. Fouzia too has raised some points. According to her she was just a junior officer, and working at the instruction of her superiors. She had neither required training in the field of Foreign Exchange, nor there were clear instruction. Moreover she claims that since she was junior and did whatever she was asked to do. Hence she should not be held responsible for what actually happened. She denies if she was really Foreign Exchange dealer in fact she poses, that she did know much about the system. This is not true.
52. The fact is that she started her career in the Bank as Foreign Exchange earlier, in the International Division Head Office Karachi during the period from 1-1-1992 to 21-11-1996 i,e,, date of her dismissal from the Bank, She was well-groomed, and knew the working of system of Foreign Exchange transactions. This is clear from her reply to her explanation letter as to why the huge losses occurred. She writes, "please note that this loss was actually occurred due to the heavy open position in US Dollars dealings. It means that we have large oversold position in US Dollar in October 1995 for the year 1996".
53. The one who knows the real cause of the malice, cannot be termed innocent, ignorant and indifference with affairs of the International Division, particularly relating to the sold Foreign Exchange deal. In fact, she tries to hide her own acts behind the shelter of being ignorant and innocent and implicating her superior.
54. It appears, that the main reason behind indulging in massive speculative Foreign Exchange deals, was the profit earned by the Bank in 1995. This had led to the accelerated promotion of Fouzia, and the financial reward to her and her boss, and others in the said Division. This probably actuated to all indulging in such speculative transactions to earn profit, and thereby financial award and promotion. This could be the reason. However, the learned counsel for the appellants, pleaded that there was no bad intention behind what the appellants did, and therefore, contended that, such an action, not supported by a bad intention should be the cause for harsh punishment of the appellants, such as dismissal from the service. And we are of the view that the offence that has threatened the very existence of the Bank should not go unpunished, specially, it converying up the losses, they have committed the additional offences.
55.Now coming to law, the respondents have brought out that enquiry was not conducted under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 as such formalities prescribed under the said rules were not required to be complied with in the instant case. As such, the case-law cited by the appellants' counsel, invariably relates to the Government Servants, and are not applicable in this.
56. The enquiry proceedings and action in consequences thereof are regulated by the Staff Service Rules of the Bank, which of provides the procedure for disciplinary action under Rule 35, which does not provide for issuance of second show-cause notice after completion of the enquiry proceedings nor does it provide for personal hearing at the stage of appeal.
57. The punishments have been awarded under rule 33 of the Staff Service Rules of the Bank which fully covers the offence committed by the appellants and the punishment awarded thereagainst.
No other Rule has got any relevance.
58.We have perused the relevant rules. We find that the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted according to Rule 35, and punishment awarded according to Rule 33. No irregularity has been committed. In view of this position, the objections raised by the learned counsel of the appellants, seem irrelevant, and case-law cited inapplicable in the present cases.
59. The respondents also have raised the objection, that the appeals are time-barred; as it amounts to challenge the original order of dismissal. Since question was not taken up during the course of regular hearing, therefore, we also do not take it at this stage.
60. Upshot of the discussion, is that the appeals fail on the ground of merit, therefore, we dismiss both appeals with no costs. Parties is informed.