SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2020 
[Against the judgment dated 30.12.2019, passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in C.P.No.869 of 2016] 
 
 
National Bank of Pakistan and another. 
…Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Zahoor Ahmed Mengal. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Kaleemullah Qureshi, ASC 
(via video link from Quetta) 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
: Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr.ASC 
(via video link from Quetta) 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 26.11.2020 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.-  We have heard the learned counsel 
appearing for the parties and have also gone through the record of the 
case. 
2. 
 
This appeal is by leave of the Court. Necessary facts of the 
matter are that the respondent was employed as Officer Grade-II with 
the appellants-National Bank of Pakistan (the Bank) and was posted in 
the Satellite Town Branch, Quetta. He absented himself from duty from 
31.10.2014 and was issued notice dated 08.07.2015, wherein he was 
asked to report for duty within three days of the said notice and to 
justify his absence. Again on 27.07.2015, absence notice was issued to 
the respondent and he was again directed to report for duty within 
three days of the issuance of the notice. The respondent did not join 
CA.681 of 2020 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
duty, rather gave a reply dated 05.08.2015 in which he acknowledged 
the absence notice dated 27.07.2015 and stated that since November, 
2014, he could not join the Branch due to threat to his life on account 
of tribal feud and that he has sent an application but has not received 
any response from the Branch. He has further stated in this very letter 
that it is extremely difficult for him to attend the office furthermore, due 
to life threat. In the letter, he has further stated that he may be allowed 
one more year’s leave without pay. He was again issued absence notice 
dated 06.08.2015 but he did not join duty. On 02.02.2016, he reported 
for duty for one day and on this very day he gave an application and 
thereafter, failed to report for duty. Ultimately, through Memorandum 
dated 07.04.2016, the service of the respondent was terminated for 
remaining absent from 31.10.2014.  
3. 
 
Mr. 
Kaleemullah 
Qureshi, 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
appellants has contended that where the very absence from duty was 
admitted, there was no need for conducting of disciplinary proceedings 
and that the High Court has wrongly assumed that order of termination 
from service was passed under the National Bank of Pakistan Rules, 
1980. He further contended that the High Court has also wrongly noted 
in the impugned judgment that the period of absence of the respondent 
has been condoned and his joining report was accepted by issuing a 
stern warning to the respondent. He contended that there is no 
evidence on the record showing condonation of absence or accepting 
joining or issuing of stern warning.  
4. 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Sr.ASC for the respondent, 
on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment but has 
frankly conceded that from 31.10.2014 to 07.04.2016, the respondent 
has remained absent from duty except for one day i.e. 02.02.2016.  
CA.681 of 2020 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
5. 
 
It is quite evident from the record and also admitted by the 
learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had remained 
absent from 31.10.2014 to 07.04.2016 except for one day i.e. 
02.02.2016, when he stated to have reported for duty. It is also 
apparent from the record that respondent was issued notices by the 
appellants to join duty but he did not join duty, rather took a plea that 
on account of tribal feud he is unable to work in the Bank having threat 
to his life. Though such ground was taken by him but as stated by the 
learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent did not provide any 
material or evidence showing that in fact there was any tribal feud or 
there was threat to his life and even no instance in this regard 
whatsoever was pointed out by the respondent. Not even an FIR of any 
incident showing threat to the life of the respondent was provided to the 
appellants.  
6. 
 
From the record it is evident that the respondent has 
remained absent from duty and that he has filed some applications with 
the Bank asking for leave but such applications for leave were not 
allowed, rather through absence notices dated 08.07.2015, 27.07.2015 
and 06.08.2015, the respondent was directed to join duty but he chose 
not to do so.  
7. 
 
In the face of such absence from duty of the respondent, 
which being admitted, there was no need to hold a regular enquiry 
because this Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan through 
Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad vs. Mamoon 
Ahmed Malik (2020 SCMR 1154), has already held that where the fact of 
absence from duty being admitted on the record, there was no need for 
holding of a regular enquiry for that there was no disputed fact involved 
to be enquired into. 
CA.681 of 2020 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
8. 
 
As regards the observation of the High Court that the 
absence period of the respondent was condoned as his joining report 
was accepted by issuing stern warning to the respondent, no document 
is available on the record which may show the period of absence of the 
respondent was condoned or his joining accepted or he was issued 
stern warning by the appellants. The only thing evident from the record 
is that by Memorandum dated 07.04.2016, the service of respondent 
was terminated from 31.10.2014 and the intervening period, from the 
date of absence from duty till the date of termination, was treated as 
Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay not counting towards Service, 
Promotion, Increment & Pensionary Benefits, etc. The treatment of 
absence period as EOL without pay has already been dealt with by this 
Court in the case of NAB through its Chairman vs. Muhammad Shafique 
(2020 SCMR 425) and Kafyat Ullah Khan vs. Inspector General of Police, 
Islamabad and another (Civil Appeal No.1661 of 2019), where it has 
been held that while imposing penalty on the employee in the case of 
unauthorized absence, the absence period treated as an EOL is not a 
punishment, rather is a treatment given to the absence period, which 
employer is entitled to do.  
9. 
 
As regards the observation of the High Court in the 
impugned judgment that the order of termination has been passed 
under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. The 
very Memorandum dated 07.04.2016, by which the service of the 
respondent was terminated, is reproduced as follows: - 
“Human Resources Management & AW 
No.RO/QTA/HRM/AW/PF/ZH/OG-II/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated 07.04.2016 
MEMORANDUM 
UN-AUTHORIZED ABSENCE FROM DUTY REPLY FOR THE 
ABSENC 
NOTICE 
DATED 
27.07.2015-MR.ZAHOOR 
AHMED OG-II (CASH OFFICER) PF#2440189 (SAP ID # 
5539) NBP, S.TOWN BRANCH QUETTA 
 
CA.681 of 2020 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
Refer joining report dated 02.02.2016 along with 04 pages 
application dated 02.02.2016 and 02 pages application 
dated 04.04.2016, of Mr. Zahoor Ahmed, received from 
Manager, 
NBP, 
S.Town 
Branch 
Quetta 
vide 
letter 
No.NBP/STQ/JOINING/2016/133 
and 
No.STQ/NBP/STAFF/2016/134 
dated 
04.02.2016, 
forwarded 
to 
Head 
Office 
vide 
RO. 
Quetta 
letter 
No.RO/QTA/HRM/AW/PF/ZA/OG-II/1269 
dated 
10.02.2016. 
 
The competent authority at Head Office vide letter 
No.PAW/I-MISC/RO(QTA)/UA/75/2015/4288 
dated 
29.03.2016 has advised that the services of Mr. Zahoor 
Ahmed OG-II have been terminated from the Bank on 
account of unauthorized absence with effect from the date 
of absence i.e. 31.10.2014, the intervening period from the 
date of absence from duty till the date of termination will be 
treated as Extra Ordinary Leave without pay not counting 
towards 
Service, 
Promotion, 
Increase/Increment 
& 
Pensionary Benefits etc. 
 
Therefore, he is advised accordingly wit the instruction to 
adjust all direct/indirect loans/liability outstanding against 
him immediately, otherwise, legal proceedings will be 
initiated for recovery against him and his Guarantor.” 
 
 
 
There is no mention whatsoever in this Memorandum that it was 
passed under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. 
It seems that the learned Division Bench of the High Court, who has 
passed the impugned judgment has merely relied upon the submission 
of the learned counsel for the respondent and assumed the same to be 
correct and thereafter, proceeded on such erroneous assumption and 
found the Memorandum of termination from service of the respondent 
to be illegal.  
10. 
 
In our view, this very treatment of the Memorandum dated 
07.04.2016 by the learned Division Bench of the High Court was not 
appropriate for it ought to have looked into the Memorandum to ensure 
and be satisfied that what was orally argued by the learned counsel for 
the respondent was correct. The Memorandum dated 07.04.2016 
having not at all stated that it has been issued under the National Bank 
of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, finding such Memorandum to be 
illegal by the learned Division Bench of the High Court was absolutely 
erroneous and unjustified and was not in accordance with the law.  
CA.681 of 2020 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
11. 
 
We, therefore, find that the impugned judgment passed by 
the learned Division Bench of the High Court could not be sustained. 
The same is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.   
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Bench-I 
Islamabad 
26.11.2020 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani/* 
JUDGE 
 
