2025 P L C (C.S.

) 227
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Yahya Afridi, Shahid Waheed and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi
Versus
ROZ-UD-DIN and another
Civil Petition No.3649 of 2023, decided on 12th September, 2024.
(Against the judgment dated 30.08.2023 of the High Court of
Balochistan, Quetta passed in C.P. No.570 of 2021).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 25---Employee of National Bank of Pakistan---Allegations of
omissions and irregularities regarding ATM cash feeding, maintenance
and balancing---Penalty of dismissal from service reduced to down
gradation by one step in pay scale---Other employees facing similar
allegations awarded lesser punishment---Discrimination---In the
impugned judgment, the High Court rightly held that under similar
facts and circumstances as well as the same set of allegations and
charges the other employees of the Bank were awarded lesser
punishment by the Disciplinary Cases Committee of the Bank, and no
reason whatsoever had been assigned to single out the respondent
who had been awarded the major punishment of dismissal from
service which amounted to clear discrimination---Nothing had been
brought on record to show that respondent was directly responsible or
had committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the
allegations as contained in the charge sheet/show cause notice,
whereas, the guilt regarding allegations and charges in the instant case
had been duly accepted through confessional statement by another
employee of the bank i.e. the Branch Manager against whom a
criminal case was also registered, however, such aspect had been
totally ignored while awarding the major punishment of dismissal
from service, which, on the face of it, was otherwise not
commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to
respondent---Neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before
the Disciplinary Cases Committee there was any direct charge of
misconduct, fraud, embezzlement of fraud or even the connivance of
respondent with the offence committed by the Branch Manager who
had accepted his guilt and entire responsibility, therefore, on the
allegation of not complying with office circulars to handle the ATM
cash feeding and allowing the Branch Manager, who was reportedly
performing the said duty as joint custodian, major penalty of dismissal
from service was not only harsh but also disproportionate to the
allegations/charge besides being discriminatory---Impugned judgment
of the High Court by which it modified the penalty of dismissal from
service awarded to the respondent to down gradation by one step in
his pay scale was upheld---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal
was refused.
Secretary to Government of the Punjab Food Department, Lahore
and another v. Javed Iqbal and others 2006 SCMR 1120 ref.
(b) Civil service---
----Punishment, quantum of---Discretion of competent authority---
Authority vested with discretion to award punishment to an employee
has to ensure that such punishment should commensurate with the
magnitude of guilt.
Malik Khushal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via
video link from Quetta).
Kamran Murtaza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat
H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.
ORDER
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Through instant petition for leave to
appeal, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 30.08.2021 of
the learned. Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta
whereby C.P. No. 570 of 2021 filed by the respondent Roz-ud-Din son of
Siraj-ud-Din, an Officer of Grade-II, National Bank of Pakistan, Harnai
Branch, Sibi Region, resident of Loralai against his dismissal from
service vide impugned Memorandum No.HRMG / EDW / F&FD/ SIBI-
3321, dated 15.12.2020, has been partly allowed and the impugned
memorandum is modified to the extent of penalty awarded to the
respondent "dismissal from service to that of down gradation by one
step in his pay scale".
2. The relevant facts for the purposes of disposal of the instant
petition for leave to appeal are recorded in para 2 of the impugned
judgment in the following terms:-
"Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed
as Officer Grade-II National Bank of Pakistan (NBP). A charge
sheet/ show cause notice No.HRMG/EDW/F&FD/ SIBI-3321-130,
dated 21.01.2020, was issued to him by the Wing Head (EDW)
NBP, with certain allegations of omissions and irregularities. An
Inquiry Officer was appointed/ deputed, two show cause notices
were issued to the petitioner, which were duly relied by him,
 thereafter, on conclusion of inquiry, vide memorandum No.
HRMG/ EDW/ F&FD/ SIBI-3321, dated 15.12.2020 (the impugned
memorandum), issued by Wing Head (EDW) NBP, a major
penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and he was dismissed
from his services. It is further contention of the petitioner that
against his dismissal, he also preferred a Departmental Appeal
before the competent authority, but the same remained
unattended and un-responded."
3. The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan,
Quetta after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having
gone through the entire record of the case as well as the treatment
meted out to other employees of the bank, who according to the
learned Division Bench, were similarly placed in respect of the same
inquiry, has been pleased to partly allow the petition filed by the
respondent, while recording detailed reasons and the finding as to the
facts and law applicable thereto in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned
judgment in the following terms:-
" 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the available record with their able assistance.
Admittedly, the petitioner was employed as Officer Grade-II,
National Bank of Pakistan, whereas, on certain allegations of
omissions and irregularities regarding ATM cash feeding, its
maintenance and balancing, he was imposed with a major
penalty of dismissal from service. It is the case of the petitioner
that he had no concern with the ATM and the Branch Manager
Babar Butt (main accused) was looking after the affairs of ATM,
but the inquiry officer giving no weight to the explanation of the
petitioner, has formulated erroneous findings and lastly he
(petitioner) was dismissed from service. Record reflects that
apart from petitioner, two other employees/ officers of the Bank
i.e. Mr. Amir Khan, OG-II and Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah, Vice
President/ then Area Manager, were also charge sheeted with
same allegations, as to petitioner, but they were then awarded
with punishment of downgraded by one step in their pay scale
with immediate effect, whereas, the petitioner who was also
facing the same allegations, Was surprisingly awarded with a
major penalty of dismissal from service, which in our
considered view is a harsh punishment. Though the competent
authority can award one of the following punishments if in its
opinion a person is found inefficient or has ceased to be efficient
for any reason or guilty of misconduct or corrupt or may
reasonably be considered as corrupt:--
a) Removal from service; or
 b) compulsory retirement; or
c) reduction to lower post or pay scale; or
d) one or more minor penalties as mentioned in the relevant Rules.
7. There is no hesitation to state that the charges of guilty of
misconduct or corruption are always considered at higher
pedestal than the charge of inefficiency. No doubt, the
competent authority had jurisdiction to award any of the above
punishments to a person/ employee found guilty, but for the
purpose of safe administration of justice, such punishment
should be awarded, which commensurate with the magnitude of
the guilt otherwise the law dealing with the subject will lose its
efficacy. As stated above, the other employees who were dealt
with same allegations were awarded punishment of downgraded
by one step in his pay scale, whereas, the petitioner was
awarded with major penalty i.e. dismissal from service. The
employees, who are similarly placed, cannot be treated
discriminately in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution,
which guarantees equality to all citizens before law and equal
protection of law. Even otherwise, the main accused i.e. Babar
Butt, recorded his statement during inquiry admitted his guilt
and accepted the entire liability and also confessed that no other
person is responsible for the loss, thus, after admission of guilt
by Babar Butt, the charge of misappropriation or embezzlements
cannot directly be attributed to the petitioner unless it is clearly
manifesting from the inquiry proceedings and the witness
appeared before the inquiry officer not implicating the
petitioner for the charge. To fortify our this view, we may place
reliance to the case title as "Secretary to Government of the
Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and another v. Javed Iqbal and
others reported in 2006 SCMR 1120."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted to assist the
Court as to whether there is any factual error or legal infirmity in the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the High
Court of Balochistan, in response to such query of the Court, the
learned counsel has argued that prima facie, there is no factual error
with regard to chronology of events as recorded in the impugned
judgment, however, according to the learned counsel, the learned
Division Bench of the High Court has failed to appreciate that since all
the legal formalities i.e. issuance of charge sheet/show cause notice
and conducting of an inquiry by the authorized officer and providing
opportunity of being heard to the respondent, were fulfilled and
thereafter, the respondent was found guilty of misconduct and
negligence, therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service was
awarded to the respondent as per law and National Bank of Pakistan
(Staff ) Service Rules, 1973 read with National Bank of Pakistan Staff
Service Rules, 2021, which authorize the bank to award one of the
punishment i.e. (a) Removal from service; (b) Compulsory retirement;
(c) Reduction to lower post or pay scale and (d) One or more minor
penalties as mentioned in the relevant Rules. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, since the respondent demonstrated
negligence and allowed Mr. Baber Butt, the Branch Manager to feed
cash in ATM, maintenance and balancing etc, whereas the Disciplinary
Cases Committee of the Bank also approved the findings of the inquiry
officer to this effect, hence awarded the punishment to the respondent
in accordance with law and relevant rules, therefore, the Divisional
Bench of the High Court: was not justified to interfere with such
decision, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
5. Conversely, Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Sr. ASC present in Court
on behalf of respondent No.1 has controverted the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, supported the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court, and
has also placed on record copy of order dated 13.12.2023 passed by this
Court in the cases of "National Bank of Pakistan through its President,
Karachi v. Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah and others" Civil Petitions
Nos.3801 and 3648 of 2023, whereby, according to the learned counsel
for the respondent, in respect of the same inquiry, allegations and
charges against another employee of the National Bank of Pakistan
namely, Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah, Vice President/Regional Executive
CAD, NBP, who was awarded punishment of one step downgraded
from Vice President to Assistant Vice President, however, such the
memorandum was set aside by the learned Division Bench of the High
Court of Balochistan, with the directions to reinstate Syed Shafqat
Hussain Shah on his previous position of Vice President/Regional
Executive CAD, NBP in accordance with law. It has been contended by
the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no allegation of
corruption, misappropriation or any embezzlement of money against
the respondent Roz-ud-Din nor the allegations/charges of even gross
negligence could be proved during the inquiry proceedings which
according to the learned counsel, otherwise were based on mala fides,
whereas, the entire guilt of fraud in respect of ATM cash was duly
accepted by the Branch Manager of the Bank namely, Babar Butt (main
accused) who was looking after the affairs of ATM, whereas, a criminal
case was also registered against him on the same set of allegations and
charges. However, per learned counsel, the inquiry officer and the
Disciplinary Cases Committee of the Bank ignored such aspect of the
matter and without establishing any case of fraud, misappropriation
or misconduct against the respondent, on mere allegation of
negligence, awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service in an
arbitrary manner. Per learned counsel, the impugned memorandum
dated 15.12.2020 is otherwise discriminatory as two other
employees/officers of the bank i.e. Mr. Amir Khan, OG-II and Syed
Shafqat Hussain Shah, Vice President/Area Manager, who were also
charge sheeted with the same allegations, were awarded with lesser
penalty i.e. downgraded by one step in their pay scale, however, that
punishment was also set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court
which decision has been duly approved by this Court in Civil Petitions
Nos. 3801 and 3648 of 2023 vide order dated 13.12.2023 copy of which
has been placed on record. It has been prayed by the learned counsel
for the respondent that instant petition having no merits is liable to be
dismissed with cost.
 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record with their assistance and have also gone through with the
order dated 13.12.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.3801
and 3648 of 2023 (National Bank of Pakistan through its President,
Karachi vs. Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah and others).
7. Since the facts regarding allegations and charges against the
present respondent namely Roz-ud-Din son of Sirajud-Din and the
other employees of the National Bank of Pakistan including Amir
Khan, Officer Grade-II and Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah, Vice
President/Area Manager serving in the same branch, have been duly
examined in detail by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment in C.P. No.570 of 2021, as well as by this Court in
its order dated 13.12.2023 in Civil Petitions Nos.3801 and 3648 of 2023,
therefore, we do not deem it appropriate to further highlight such
facts, more particularly, when facts have not been disputed, whereas,
in the impugned judgment, it has been held that under similar facts
and circumstances as well as the same set of allegations and charges,
the other employees of the National Bank of Pakistan i.e. Amir Khan,
OG-II and Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah, were awarded lesser
punishment by the Disciplinary Cases Committee of National Bank of
Pakistan, and no reason whatsoever has been assigned to single out
the respondent Roz-ud-Din who has been awarded the major
punishment of dismissal from service which amounts to clear
discrimination. It is pertinent to note that nothing has been brought on
record to show that respondent Roz-ud-Din was directly responsible or
has committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the
allegations as contained in the charge sheet/show cause notice,
whereas, the guilt regarding allegations and charges in the instant case
has been duly accepted through confessional statement by another
employee of the bank namely, Baber Butt against whom a criminal
case was also registered, however, such aspect has been totally
ignored while awarding the major punishment of dismissal from
service, which, on the face of it, was otherwise not commensurate with
the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to respondent.
Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the learned Division
Bench in the case of Secretary to Government of the Punjab Food
Department, Lahore and another v. Javed Iqbal and others (2006 SCMR
1120) wherein, it has been held as under:-
"(6). It is also important to note that the word 'inefficient; has not
been defined in this Ordinance, however, definition of the word
'misconduct'; is almost the same which has been assigned to it in
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999.
There is no gain in saying that charges of guilty of misconduct or
corruption are always considered at higher pedestal than the
 charge of inefficiency. No doubt the competent authority had
jurisdiction to award any of the above punishments to the
Government employee but for the purpose of safe
administration of justice, such punishment should be awarded
which commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt otherwise
the law dealing with the subject will lose its efficacy. In instant
case admittedly respondents are not guilty of the charge of
misconduct or corruption, therefore, extreme penalty of
removing them from service for the charge of inefficiency or
negligence was on a high side. As such we are of the opinion that
to meet the ends of justice learned Service Tribunal has rightly
reduced the quantum of punishment awarded to the
respondents by the competent authority. As the judgment of the
Service Tribunal has proceeded on recognized principles of law
as has been discussed herein above, therefore, impugned
judgment admits no interference by this Court. Thus for the
foregoing reasons instant petitions are dismissed and leave
declined."
8. It will not be out of place to refer to provisions of Article 25 of the
Constitution, which guarantees equality to all citizens before law and
equal protection of law and, whereas, it is also well settled that for
safe administration of justice, the Authority vested with discretion to
award punishment to an employee shall ensure that such punishment
should commensurate with the magnitude of guilt. In the instant case,
employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, who according to the
finding as recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment, were
similarly placed and facing the similar charges, could not be treated
differently nor the respondent-Roz-ud-Din, in the absence of any
charge of fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, or even
establishing the allegation of misconduct, could be awarded major
punishment of dismissal from service in a arbitrary manner. In the
instant case, it is manifest from the record that there is no charge of
commission of any act which may be termed as misconduct, gross
negligence, or inefficiency in performance of his duties, however, it
appears that respondent omitted to follow instructions whereby he
was assigned the work of feeding cash in ATM, its maintenance and
balancing, and the said work was contained by the Branch Manager
Babar Butt, who has admitted his guilt. Moreover, the Division Bench
of the High Court of Balochistan in C.Ps. Nos.131(S) and 132(S) of 2021
vide judgment dated 30.08.2023 in the case of Syed Shafqat Hussain
Shah and others, has been pleased to even set aside the office
memorandum issued by the National Bank of Pakistan, which order
has been duly upheld by this Court in Civil Petitions Nos.3801 and 3648
of 2023 vide order dated 13.12.2023, while directing the National Bank
of Pakistan to reinstate Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah on his previous
position of the Vice President/Regional Executive CAD, NBP in
accordance with law. However, in the instant case, the Division Bench
of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta has partly allowed the petition
filed by the respondent (Roz-ud-Din son of Siraj-ud-Din) whereby, the
impugned memorandum dated 15.12.2020 issued by Wing Head (EDW)
NBP dismissing him from service, has only been modified to the extent
of penalty of dismissal from service to that of down gradation by one
step in his pay scale with immediate effect. It is pertinent to note that
neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before the
Disciplinary Cases Committee there is any direct charge of misconduct,
fraud, embezzlement of fraud or even the connivance of respondent-
Roz-ud-Din with the offence committed by Mr. Babar Butt, OG-II
(Branch Manager) of NBP who has accepted his guilt and entire
responsibility, therefore, on the allegation of not complying with office
circulars to handle the ATM cash feeding and allowing the Branch
Manager Babar Butt, OG-II who was reportedly performing the said
duty as joint custodian, major penalty of dismissal from service is not
only harsh but also disproportionate to the allegations/charge, besides
being discriminatory. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the
instant petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed and leave to
appeal was refused vide our short order of even date and above are
the reasons of such short order.
MWA/N-11/SC Petition dismissed.
;