Inayat Ur Rehman Vs NBP

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

(ludicial Department) W.P. No. 571- N2024

Inayat-ur-Rehman.

(Petitioner/s)

VS

Itlational Bank of Pakistan, through its President, Head Office, II Chundrigar Road, Karachi and others.

(Respondent/s)

Present Sarmad Faraz Abbasi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Malik Khushal Khan, Advocate, for respondents.

Date of hearing: 06.05.2025

JUDGMENT

SADIO ALI, J.- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed as under;

" lt is therefore humbly prayed that on acceptcince of this writ petition, the impugned memorqndum dated 03.03.2023, No. HRMG/EDW/F&FD/ ABBTT-3129/125 and nrder dated 25.01.2021 may graciously be set aside and respondent bank may be directed to re-instate the petitioner back to his original pay scale with all service back benefits and to consider his case for promotion as a regular employee. "

df The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner w'as initially appointed as an OG-III Cash Officer through an appointment order dated 22.05.2014. He performed his

duties with dedication and served at various branches of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) within District Abbottabad. However, on 01.12.2022, the petitioner was seryed with a show cause notice and a charge sheet by the respondents/Bank, without any prior warning. He duly submitted a reply, denying all the allegations leveled against him. It is further contended that the respondents, without following the due process of law or affording the petitioner the right to a fair trial, imposed a penalty upon him through a memorandum dated 03.03.2023, whereby he was downgraded by one step in his pay scale with immediate effect for a period of one year. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

1.When this case was taken up for hearing, respondents were directed to file para-wise comments, which they have submitted accordingly.

I. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary d$ objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the basis of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 2021, having been non-statutory. He further argued that the Federal Government has repealed the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules, 1973 and new service rules of 2021 have been framed under

J

Section 5l of the Byelaws of 2015, which are non- statutory. He further contended that the new National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 2021 carry instructive status, thus, are non-statutory, therefore, employees of National Bank of Pakistan could not ask for enforcement of non-statutory rules through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. He placed reliance on the cases reported as Pukistan Electric Power Company Vs Syed Salluhuddin (2022 SCMR 991), Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others v. Saeed Ahmed Khoso and another, (2022 SCMR 1256), and Surdur Ali Khsn Vs. State Bank of Pakiston and others 2022 SCMR 1454, where it has been held that the relationship between the employees and respondent-bank was/is of master and servant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that National Bank of Pakistan is government owned entity and is not a private entity. The sf National Bank of Pakistan is a corporate body established under the statutory law and carrying on essential State functions. He next argued that the Honorable Supreme Court has already allowed various writ petitions against the respondent-bank and thus the objection raised on behalf of the bank is of no worth, in terms of the ratio of the decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases

reported as Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v.

Nutional Bank of Pakistan and others,2013 SCMR 314 and Ramna Pipes and General Mills versus SNGPL (2004 SCMR 1274). Leamed counsel emphasized that under section 37 of NBP Bye-laws, 2015, the appointment of Directors of NBP are to be approved by the Federal Government, in consultation with the State Bank of Pakistan for three years, whereas under section 38, the appointment of the Chairman of the Board is to be made by the Federal Govemment, therefore, this petition is maintainable and can be heard on merits 6 In order to fully address the above proposition, the National Bank of Pakistan is a statutory body established under the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949, and its employees are employees of a df statutory corporation and thus fall within the purview of Article 199 (5) of the Constitution,lgT3. Reliance in this respect 1S placed on the judgment reported AS Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan, etc (2023 SCMR 301), wherein it was held that NBP being a statutory corporation is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also its employees can avail the recourse to the writ jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances in respect of their

service maffers. A snippet whereof is reproduced as under

"The NBP, as per section 3(2) of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949, is a body corporate, and its employees are employees of a statutory corporation, not of the Federal Government. They are therefore not "government servants" or "civil servants" as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

6.We are cognizant of the legal position that the NBP, being a statutory corporation, is amenqble to the writ .jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and its employees when are governed or proceeded against under the statutory rules can also avail the recourse to the writ jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances in respect of their service matters. However, this legal position does not merge the NBP, a separate juristic person, into the Federal Government, nor in any mqnner blur the distinction between NBP a Statutory Corporation and the Federal Government, a constitutional body or in any manner turn the employees of the NBP into the employees of the Federal Government.T 7. For the above reasons, we agree with the d[f conclusion of the impugned iudgment. The petition is meritless. It is, therefore, dismissed and the leave to appeal is declined. " Z. The record reveals that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner through the issuance of a charge sheet and a show cause notice, alleging various acts of misconduct and procedural irregularities purportedly committed during

his tenure as General Banking Officer (GBO) at the National Bank of Pakistan (LIBP), Nawanshehr Branch, Regional Office, Abbottabad. The period in question spans from 29th March 2018 to 4th October 2021. The petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice, wherein he categorically denied the allegations and explained his role in the official transactions under scrutiny. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the respondent bank authorities proceeded to impose a penalty upon him and he was downgraded by one step in his pay scale for a period of one year, with immediate effect. The basis for this adverse action was the assertion that the petitioner, in conjunction with the Branch Manager, had jointly processed and passed expense vouchers and payment orders purportedly supported by tampered bills and invoices. It was further alleged that the responsibility of each official involved in the transaction is co-extensive, and that the petitioner's accountability remained intact as he was a ioint N signatory to the said documents.

g. The findings and recommendations of the Inquiry Officer paint a different picture. After carefully analyzing the evidence on record, including the statements of both the petitioner and the management's representative, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the petitioner could not be substantiated.

It was observed that the specific accusation concerning the approval of fourteen (14) expense vouchers lacked tangible evidence. Crucially, the petitioner's alleged signatures on the questioned documents were neither subjected to forensic examination nor verified through any scientific or technical process. As such, there was no conclusive proof establishing the petitioner's complicity in the alleged misconduct. The Inquiry Officer further opined that the allegations were ambiguous, speculative, and fraught with doubt. The charge, instead of being based on solid evidence and due process, appeared to rest on mere conjecture and imagination. The absence of proper forensic testing and the lack of a clear nexus between the petitioner's conduct and the purported tampering of financial documents rendered the disciplinary action inherently flawed. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer recommended exoneration of the petitioner, finding that the charge had not been proved against him.

d 2. Despite the inquiry's clear and favorable findings, the respondent bank authorities proceeded to punish the petitioner without any additional or independent justification, thereby undermining the principles of natural justice and fair inquiry. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that the disciplinary action taken

against the petitioner was arbitrary, unjustified, and without lawful authority. The impugned order having been passed in contravention of due process and contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

10.Accordingly, the instant constitutional petition is allowed as prayed for. The impugned order dated 03.03.2023 and order of competent authority dated 25.01.2024 is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and is consequently set aside.

Announced /l

06.05.202s Tahir Saleem

GE

I

tu$n (Oq Ur. Justice Muhammad Faheem Wali and Mr' Juslice Sadiq Ali