Najmuddin Vs Federation of Pakistan

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, MINGORA BENCH

(DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department)

W.P No. 467-M/2022

Najmuddin

—Versus— Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Finance and others Date of hearing: 25.11.2025

PRESENT:

M/S Syed Abdul Haq, ASC and Barrister Dr. Adnan Khan petitioner.

Mr. Said Jamil Shah, Assistant Attorney General for the Federation.

Mr. Muhkhtar Ahmad Maneri, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5.

JUDGMENT

QAZI JAWAD EHSANULLAH, J.- Through instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed on acceptance of this writ petition in the light of aforementioned submissions i. this court may kindly declare the initial dismissal order dated 07.02.2019 and the subsequent order dated 18.11.2021 be illegal, void ib-initio, ineffective upon the rights of petitioner & the Petitioner may kindly be re- instated on his own post with immediate effect without any break and all back benefits. ii. That payment of his dues between the period of his termination and reinstatement may kindly be granted as per law.”

Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

2.Succinctly narrated, the petitioner entered the service of the National Bank of Pakistan on 07.07.1996 as an Assistant and, over the course of his career, rose to Officer Grade-III and thereafter to Officer Grade-II in 2009, maintaining throughout a meritorious and unblemished record extending over twenty-five years. During his posting as Manager of the Chakdara Branch in 2018, a customer, Mst. Huma Bibi (widow), requested an urgent transfer of Rs. 20 lac from her Account No. 408194432 to Account No. 3081910828 in the name of Noor Zaman, notwithstanding that her cashbook was held by her father. A few days later she presented a cheque for Rs. 15 lac and instructed that the balance of Rs. 5 lac be re-credited to her Account No. 4081944372, which the Petitioner facilitated in the ordinary course of business. On 07.01.2019, the respondents served a charge sheet upon him pertaining to the above debits and credits, which he rebutted; however, the enquiry that followed concluded against him showing him guilty of the charge. A second show-cause notice dated 04.04.2019 was issued, to which he submitted a comprehensive explanation on 18.04.2020. Before any final adjudication, he was transferred to the Regional Office, Saidu Sharif, Swat and was thereafter dismissed from service through order dated 07.07.2019, allegedly without adherence to due process. He preferred an appeal on 30.07.2019, but in the absence of any response he invoked Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

the writ jurisdiction by filing Writ Petition No. 825- M/2020. This Court, after calling comments, directed on 03.11.2021 that the appellate authority shall decide the matter within fifteen days, whereupon the authority, vide order dated 28.11.2021 (received by him in December 2021 per his stance), rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved, he has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through the instant petition.

3.Conversely, respondents No. 2-4 have sated in their comments that the petitioner’s initial appointment is admitted but deny his assertion of an unblemished record, asserting instead that he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct. According to them, during his tenure as Branch Manager at Chakdara, he carried out unauthorized and fraudulent transactions: specifically, he debited the account of customer Mst. Huma Bibi for Rs.

2,000,000/- and credited the amount to the account of one Noor Zaman, and later debited the deceased customer’s account for Rs. 1,500,000/- using his own user ID, thereby misappropriating funds. The respondents further claim that the cheque used for withdrawal was fictitious and that no written request of the customer existed on record authorizing such transfers.

4.Arguments heard and record perused.

Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

5.The basis for the petitioner’s removal from service vide order dated 02.07.2019, as reflected in the charge sheet1, was twofold: (i) that during his tenure as Branch Manager from 12.02.2017 to 14.05.2018, he allegedly made an unauthorized debit of Rs. 2,000,000/- from Account No. 4081944372 titled Huma Bibi through Cheque No. 6471287 dated 26.04.2018 and credited the amount to the deceased customer’s Account No. 308190828 titled Noor Zaman; and (ii) that on 30.04.2018 he purportedly debited the deceased customer’s Account No.

308190828 for Rs. 1,500,000/- by using his User ID-13531 and misappropriated the said amount. Although the dismissal was founded on the charge sheet and the show- cause notice2, the impugned dismissal order makes no reference to any inquiry proceedings. For clarity, the operative part of the order is reproduced below:

“MEMORANDUM”

DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MR NAJMUDDIN,

OG-II/THEN MANAGER-UNAUTHORISED

TRANSACTIONS IN CUSTOMER’S ACCOUNT NBP,

CHAKDARA BRANCH, RO, SWAT.

In terms of charge sheet & Show Cause Notice No. HRMC/IDW/F&FD/SWI-3276729 dated 07.01.2019, he is advised that after taking into consideration all aspects of the case, the competent authority has dismissed him from bank’s service with immediate effect in the above case on the following charges.

“Being Branch Manger, he was found guilty of unauthorized debit for Rs.2,000,000/- to customer’s account No. 408194432 through his User ID and credited the amount to

Page 11 of the Writ Petition

Page 17 of the Writ Petition Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

deceased A/c No. 308190828 which was subsequently withdrawn by him. On detection, he deposited Rs.1,500(M) in the account of concerned customer through IBT with his own signature from NBP Chungi Shamozai Brach, Swat”.

The inquiry report3 relied upon by the

respondents does not show that the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine any witness, nor does the appellate order4 indicate that he was granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The appellate authority affirmed the dismissal on the following grounds:

“The User ID of the appellant used in unauthorized/flying fraudlent transactions cannot be denied.

Credit through IBT of Rs.1,500,000/- in the account of Mst. Huma Bibi was made by the appellant with is own signatures.”

A plain reading of the above shows that the appellate authority had upheld the dismissal on a ground that neither appears in the show-cause notice nor forms part of the original charge. The petitioner was never confronted with this specific allegation at any stage of the departmental proceedings. The omission to put the particular charge to him before drawing an adverse conclusion amounts to a clear denial of fair trial. Thus, the petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with law. The right to fair trial and due process is a fundamental guarantee under Article 10-A of Pages 18-22 of the comments

Page 43 of the Writ Petition Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

the Constitution, which requires that no adverse action affecting a person’s reputation, employment, or civil rights be taken without transparency, impartiality, and a meaningful opportunity of defence. These constitutional protections fully extend to departmental inquiries and require proper notice of allegations, access to material, opportunity to rebut evidence, and a reasoned determination by an unbiased authority.

6.Furthermore, it is not the case of the

respondents, nor does the record show, that the alleged acts have resulted in any loss to the Bank or personal gain to the petitioner. There is equally no suggestion of previous misconduct during his lengthy service. In such circumstances, even assuming some procedural irregularity or lapse, the imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal appears wholly disproportionate to the nature of the charge and inconsistent with the settled principles of fairness and proportionality. More particularly, when the petitioner had served the Bank for nearly twenty-five years and had risen through the ranks over the course of his career without allegation of embezzlement except the present one. The impugned orders are, therefore, vitiated for want of due process and are amenable to correction in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The Supreme Court, while addressing similar issues in Muhammad Ismail v.

Government of Punjab through Secretary Law and Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Parliamentary Affairs Division, Lahore and others5, held as follows.

“7. Courts play a critical role in ensuring that penalties imposed on civil servants are just, proportionate, and lawful. Judicial review of disciplinary actions is essential in preventing arbitrary or excessive punishments while maintaining the integrity of the civil service. A key principle in judicial review is proportionality--the penalty must not be excessively harsh in relation to the offense. Courts frequently set aside penalties that are disproportionately severe, ensuring fairness in disciplinary actions. Similarly, courts apply the principle of rationality and reasonableness, which requires that disciplinary decisions be based on objective evidence and not be arbitrary or politically motivated. Another essential principle is procedural fairness (due process). Affected civil servants must be granted a fair hearing, and disciplinary proceedings must adhere to legal requirements. Due process ensures that no officer is unjustly penalized without being given an opportunity to present their defense. At the same time, courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid undue interference with executive discretion. While judicial review is necessary to prevent abuse of power, courts must respect the autonomy of the executive branch in managing its employees. Judicial intervention should be limited to cases involving clear illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent. Finally, courts must balance individual rights with the larger public interest. While it is imperative to protect employees from unfair treatment, judicial decisions should not undermine the broader objectives of maintaining an efficient and disciplined civil service. A well-functioning disciplinary system is essential for governance, and courts must ensure that their rulings do not compromise the effectiveness of administrative oversight. With this background we approach the present case.”

(Underlining added)

Reliance is also placed on Government of Punjab through Secretary, Labour and Manpower, Civil Secretariat

2025 SCMR 708

Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

and others V. Shahid Mehmood Butt6 wherein the principle of penalty proportionate to the guilt of the official has been discussed in the following words.

“6. It is no doubt true that the learned Tribunal can, in their discretion, reduce the penalty in an appropriate case. However, the exercise of discretion is to be informed by reason and based on relevant considerations. One broad principle is that the penalty should be proportionate to the guilt. What is proportionate to the guilt depends on facts and circumstances of a given case such as the nature of duties, the level of responsibility, the nature of the organization and the conduct of the civil servant, his service record, the nature of misconduct etc. After concurring with the finding of the departmental authorities as to the guilt of a civil servant, their decision on the quantum of penalty should be respected because while imposing penalty, the departmental authority may have variety of factors in view. For example, if in a particular office, the discipline is alarmingly eroded, and despite warning the situation does not improve, the competent authority may, in a case of a small misfeasance, justifiably take extreme action. There could yet be another situation i.e. that two officials of the same grade in the same office are charged with minor similar misfeasance. One is an efficient and hardworking official while the other is lethargic, avoids accepting responsibility or may have other negative trait. The authority may have soft corner for the first and he may be visited with a minor penalty while in case of the other, the authority may have a different approach.” (Underlining added)

The principle highlighted above also finds reflection in Auditor-General of Pakistan and others v.

Muhammad Ali and others7. In that case, three government employees were proceeded against for negligence and

2006 SCMR 443

2006 SCMR 60

Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

inefficiency after excessive payments were erroneously made from several G.P. Fund accounts, resulting in financial loss to the Government. The inquiry held them responsible consequent upon which the competent authority imposed severe major penalties; removal from service for one official and compulsory retirement for the other two.

The Supreme Court disapproved the imposition of such harsh punishments and upheld the Service Tribunal’s decision converting the major penalties into a minor penalty, holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the lapse, particularly when senior officers who were equally responsible had been subjected only to nominal penalties. The Court reaffirmed that:

“3. ...... The element of bad faith and wilfulness may bring an act of negligence within the purview of misconduct but lack of proper care and vigilance may not always be wilful to make it a case of grave negligence inviting severe punishment. The philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of deterrence or reformation. The purpose of deterrent punishment is not only to maintain balance with the gravity of wrong done by a person but also to make an example for others as a preventive measure for reformation of the society, whereas the concept of minor punishment in the law is to make an attempt to reform the individual wrong doer. In service matters, the extreme penalty for minor acts depriving a person from right of earning would definitely defeat the reformatory concept of punishment in administration of justice. In view thereof, we would not take any exception to the view of the matter taken by the Tribunal.”

Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

This Court, in an almost identical situation in W.P. No. 5274-P/2021 titled Fazali Rabbi v. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through its President ZTBL, Faisal Avenue, Head Office, Islamabad and others, decided on 13.06.2024, reached the same conclusion as in the present case. While placing reliance on the above-referred pronouncement as well as the dictum of the apex Court in Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board, Peshawar through Executive Officer and others reported in PLD 2019 SC 189, the Court remitted the matter to the competent authority to reconsider the inquiry report and to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the principle of proportionality in the imposition of penalties.

7.In light of the above discussion, the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is reinstated into service. While preserving the authority of the Bank to proceed departmentally against its officials, it is directed that if the Bank intends to hold a fresh inquiry against the petitioner, the same shall be a regular inquiry conducted strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceedings, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present his defence. He shall also be granted opportunity of personal hearing before both the departmental and appellate authorities. In case the competent authority ultimately find him guilty, the principles of proportionality in awarding Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

penalty shall also be carefully observed. The question of back benefits shall abide by the final outcome of such proceedings. The petition stands disposed of in these terms.

Announced Dt:25.11.2025 Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Tajamul/CS | DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah Ud Din Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah