IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Present:

Irshad Ali Shah, J.

Agha Faisal, J.

 

CP D364 of 2016                 :           Khursheed Ahmedvs.

ZaraiTaraqiati Bank Ltd&Others

 

For the Petitioner                 :           Mr. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto, Advocate

 

For the Respondents          :           Mr. Ali Nawaz Junejo, Advocate for ZTBL

                                                            Mr. Muhammad Imran Abbasi, Assistant

Attorney General

 

Dates of hearing                  :           26.01.2022

 

Date of announcement      :           26.01.2022

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J.         The petitioner was show caused by his employer, the respondent No.1, upon allegations of fraud and embezzlement and after completion of the entire departmental process was awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement and recovery of the embezzled amount, vide order dated 18.2.2014. The appeal against said order was also dismissed vide order dated 02.3.2016, hence, this petition.

 

2.            Per petitioner’s counsel, the evidence was not appreciated in its proper perspective in the departmental proceedings, therefore, the same ought to be reappraised by this Court. The respondents' counsel submitted that the charges against the petitioner stood established after conclusion of proper proceedings and no interference was merited therewith.

 

3.            Heard and perused. It is apparent that the entire spectrum of departmental proceedings to establish culpability has been exhausted in the present case and even the remedy of appeal stands availed. It is settled law that an appeal is a creation of statute and in the absence thereof no presumption in such regard is merited.The absence of yet another forum of appeal does not confer automatic jurisdiction upon High Court to act as the appellate court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, which may only be invoked if the precepts of Article 199 are attracted.  Learned counsel has not argued that the impugned orders suffer from any want of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction and / or any manifest illegality, hence no case of interference is made out there with.

 

4.            The record demonstrates that the allegation against the petitioner was subjected to the anvil of a proper inquiry and repeated opportunities were provided to the petitioner to dispel the charge/s there against. Per the admitted documentation filed, the preponderance of the incriminating record against the petitioner could not be controverted, hence, the decision. While eschewing a voluminous repetition[1] of the incriminating record, it would suffice to observe that the petitioner's counsel been unable to demonstrate that the decision taken could not have been predicated upon the record under consideration.

 

5.            In summation it is observed that the principles of audi alteram partem appear to have been observed in the proceedings under scrutiny; no cavil has been articulated by the petitioner's counsel in so far as the procedural aspect of the proceedings is concerned; the decision appears to have been taken rested upon the preponderance of record, upon concluding that the same was commensurate punishment considering the gravity of the offence concerned. It is in this context that it is observed that the learned counsel has been unable to demonstrate any infirmity with respect to the proceedings.

 

6.            It is trite law[2] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.

 

7.            Article 199 of the Constitution contemplates the discretionary[3] writ jurisdiction of this Court and the said discretion may be exercised in the absence of an adequate remedy. In the present matter admittedly there existed an adequate remedy, however, the same was duly availed / exhausted and no case has been set forth before us for de novo agitation of the matter.

 

8.            In view hereof, this Court is constrained to observe that no case has been set forth for the invocation of the discretionary[4] writ jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this petition is hereby dismissed.

 

                                                                   JUDGE

 

JUDGE

                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                         

 

 

 

 

 


[1]Per Mansoor Ali Shah J. in the yet unreported judgment dated 18.08.2020 in Farooq Hussain vs. Shaikh Aftab Ahmed (CRP 104-L of 2019 & connected matters).

[2]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in NaheedNusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.

[3] Per Ijaz Ul Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.

[4]Per Ijaz Ul Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.