SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Mr. Justice Muhammad AU Mazhar
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1165 OF 2021
[Against the order dated 18.2.2021, passed by the Lahore
High Court, Lahore, in W.P. No.53502 of 20191
President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited,
Islamabad and others 
. . . Petitioners
Versus
Agha Hassan Khursheed 
. . . Respondent
For the Petitioners
Respondent
Date of Hearing
Mr. Adrian Ahmed Khawaja, ASC
Mr. Jawaid Masood Tahir Shatti,
AOR (absent)
Hassan Raza, HeaA Legal, ZTBL
Muhammad Jibran, Law Officer
In person
03.0 1.2022
ORDER
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- The petitioners bank had
advertised the post of Assistant Vice President (AVP)
(Operations) in which the qualification required was that of
Master •Degree in Business Administration/ Commerce with at
least seven years experience or Graduate/Post Graduate degree
with twelve years experience in Banking Operations in large
commercial or financial organizations. The respondent applied
for the said post and it is admitted by him, who is present in
person that he has mentioned in his application, the
qualification of holding of BA Degree in Punjabi, Political
Science, Journalism so also MBA (Marketing). The case of the
C11. 1165 of 202) 
2.
I -
respondent was processed for appointment as AVP by the
It
petitioners bank by mentioning both his qualifications of BA as
well as MBA and such is mentioned in the list of shortlisted
candidates (at page 93 of the paper book) where the name of the
respondent is mentioned at Serial No.3. The name of the
respondent appears at Serial No.51 in the Interview Evaluation
Sheet, where he has been granted 55 marks for the Professional
Competence and overall 74 marks. At page 104 of the paper
book, again the name of the respondent appears at Serial No-51
in which his qualification is mentioned as BA (Punjabi, Political
Science) from Bahauddin Zikria University and MBA (Marketing)
from Cresset College, Lahore with previous experience of service
as AVP, My Bank Limited, from 1996 to date and again overall
74 marks have been given to him. The respondent was issued
Offer of Employment letter dated 11.07.2009 as AVP. Clause (f)
of item No.vi of the Offer of Employment letter provides as
follows:
"f) In case any information/ document
provided by you at the time off seeking
appointment in the Bank or after joining
proved to be incorrect/fake, necessary
departmental proceedings would be
initiated against you, which may result
in termination of your services from the
Bank. The above action shall not
preclude the criminal proceedings that
the Bank may initiate against you for
recovery of its dues/assets which you
may owe to the Bank at the time of
termination."
CI'.l 165 of 202 
-3-
It seems that vide Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2015, the
respondent was granted promotion from the post of AVP to Vice
President with effect from 01.04.2015. This Office Memorandum
is available at page 111 of the paper book. in the meantime,
another Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2009 was issued,
which is available at page 117 of the paper book by which the
respondent was asked to provide academic credentials duly
attested/ authenticated by the Higher Education Commission
(HEC) along with Declaration of Assets and Liabilities (on
enclosed format) and attested copy of CNIC, at the earliest for
record. The respondent submitted along with letter dated
28.09.2015, degrees/ certificates verified from the HEC and in
the Column mentioned Degrees/ Certificates, MBA and in the
Column of department, it is mentioned as GSU, Lahore. This 'I
letter appears at page 137 of the paper book. The respondent
admits that he has signed this letter and submitted the MBA H.
Degree verified from HEC to the petitioners bank. The I
petitioners bank through letter dated 15.10.2015 addressed to
the Director, Attestation and Accreditation, HEC sent the MBA
Transcript submitted by the respondent for verification along
with copy of CNTC of the respondent. HEC responded to theç
petitioners bank letter vide letter dated 26.10.2015 available at
page 141 of the paper book where in the Columns provided atH
H
Serial No.1, Ticket No.271260, January 21, 2010 the remarks!
are OK. At Serial No.2, against the name of the respondent,
Ticket No.209089 dated February 09, 2015, MBA transcript of
the respondent was found not attested by HEC and it was:
CF. 1) h, 0! 202
further informed that Ticket No.209089 reflected on MBA
transcript held by the respondent was originally allotted to
B.Sc. (Hons) degree held by one Irfan Yaqub. The respondent
was issued Charge Sheet dated 19.01.20 18 along with the
Statement of Allegations that he has failed to supply Degree of
MBA despite lapse of 13 years and he obtained BA Degree from
Bahauddin Zakria University, Multan during Session 1,996 and
MBA Degree from Cresset College, Lahore during Session 2002,
while he remained posted in My Bank, Karachi from 16.06.1996 1
to 20.07.2009 as AVP. He was informed that he violated clause
(0 of Item No.vi of the Offer of Employment letter dated
11.07.2009. The respondent submitted reply to the Charge L
Sheet/ Statement of Allegations, which he has dated as
02.03.2017 in the first page of the reply, but while under his
signature, the respondent has mentioned the date of If
02.03.201.8. This reply of the respondent is available at page
152 of the paper book. It seems that in reply dated 31.10.20171
to a letter dated 26.10.201.7 of the petitioners bank, the
respondent has specifically mentioned as follows: 
I
"Keeping in view the above narrated just and
genuine facts it is again humbly requested
that MBA Degree may please be deleted from
my testimonial as well as in your record to
avoid unnecessary correspondence as it is
impossible for me for verification and
submission of attest copy of my MBA degree
 
at this belated stage."
CI'. 1165 of 2021 
.1
F 
F
- 5
In his reply to the Charge Sheet and the Statement of
Allegations, the respondent has stated as follows:
"Keeping in view the above narrated facts and
figures it is humbly requested that I may be
absolved from the charges levelled against me
with the request that I may very kindly be
waived off the condition to submit my extra
qualification of MBA mentioned in my CV
which may be deleted from my testimonial
and from your record as already requested for
which I shall be highly obliged and pray for
your long life and prosperity."
It seems that enquiry was conducted against the respondent on
the Charge Sheet and the Statement of Allegations, where the J
charges against the respondent were found to be proved. He
was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 10.04.2018 by the
petitioners bank. The respondent filed reply dated 29.04.2018H
to the Show Cause Notice. Vide letter dated 30.04.20 18 of thei]
petitioners bank, the respondent was asked to appear for:
personal hearing. The respondent filed Writ Petition No.222080!
of 2018. On 28.06.2018, the High Court disposed of the writ I
petition with the direction that application (Annex-L) be decided?
strictly in accordance with law. It seems that no notice of the
writ petition was issued to the petitioners bank rather the DAG
was called to examine the file, who accordingly made statement
that he has no objection if such direction is issued. Pursuant tO
the order dated 28.06.2018 of the Lahore High Court, the
respondent was called for personal hearing vide letter dated
09.07.2018. The respondent again file writ petition No.226277
I
Cl', 1 165 of 202
-6-
of 2018 against this letter of personal hearing dated
09.07.2018. This writ petition of the respondent was allowed by
the Nigh Court vide its order dated 17.06.2019 and notice of
personal hearing dated 09.07.2018 was set aside and the
petitioners bank were directed to hold a regular enquiry in
which the person who appointed the respondent shall be
associated. Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated
17.06.2019 vide Office Memorandum dated 07.08.2019 an
Enquiry Committee was constituted to conduct fresh enquiry
into the Charge Sheet and the Statement of Allegations dated
19.01.2018 against the respondent. The respondent through his
Advocate, Mian Liauqat Au, submitted objections dated
12.09.201.9 on the constitution of the Enquiry Committee, On :1
17.09.2019, the respondent was issued final notice to appear!
before the Enquiry Committee. This final notice was again
challenged by the respondent by filing of Writ Petition No.53502
of 2019 and through an order dated 20.09.2019, the High Court
suspended the final notice dated 17.09.20 1.9. Through a
Circular dated 09.09.2020, the petitioners bank has abolished
General Services Unit, Karachi and Lahore. Through Office' .
Memorandum dated 14.09.2020, the respondent service was
terminated on the ground of abolishment of General Services
Unit, Karachi and Lahore. Such termination of the respondent
was effected in terms of para 16(B) of HR Manual (2012) under
Staff Regulations (SR)-2005. On 18.02.202 1, the High Court
passed the impugned order in Writ Petition No.53502 of 2019,
whereby the petitioners were given one month's time to
CP. 1 165 of 2021
conclude the enquiry in accordance with the observations and
directions passed by the Court on 17.06.20 19 in Writ Petition
No.226277 of 2018. The respondent states that he has filed
another Writ Petition No.18588 of 2021 in the Lahore High
Court where he has challenged the letter of his termination.
2.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
in the first place the enquiry being conducted by the petitioners
bank against the respondent was to determine as to whether L
the respondent is at all entitled to payment of terminal dues for
which Enquiry Committee was constituted but the respondent
did not participate in the same rather submitted frivolous
objections and filed the writ petitions one after the other due to;
which the enquiry could not be completed. The learned counsel
further contends that the petitioners bank only has to pass final
order in respect of the enquiry and the petitioners bank bef
allowed to pass the order to conclude the proceedings.
3.
The learned counsel further contends that in the
order dated 17.06.2019, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court while setting aside notice of personal hearing dated
09.07.2018 has directed the petitioners to hold a regula
enquiry in which the person who appointed the respondent
shall be associated. The learned counsel contends that Mr. Zaka
Ashraf, who was the then President of the petitioners bank, has
appointed the respondent and the very appointment of Mr. Zaka
Ashraf as President of the Bank in the case of Muhammad Igbal
Khattak vs. Federation of Pakistan (2010 CLD 1572), in a
4.
- 7
UP. 1165 of 202
petition for
for quo waanto was found to be without lawful
authority and of no legal effect.
4. 
It seems that this judgment of the High Court was
challenged in ICA No.21.1. of 2010 in which initially interim
injunction was granted but subsequently the ICA was disposed
of vide order dated 25,09.2014, against which Muhammad lqbal
Khattak filed Civil Petition No.2290 of 2014, which was
dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2015. However, Mr. Zaka U
Ashraf resigned from the post of the President of the petitioners
bank. The learned counsel further contends that the very order!
of associating the appointing authority of the respondent, who
was Mr. Zaka Ashraf, in the enquiry is not possible at this point U
of time and even otherwise, such an order is ex fade a void!J
order.
S. We note that such argument has been made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners bank but the very order
dated 17.06.20 1.9 was not challenged by the petitioners and
attained finality. However, we note that the observation of the,
High Court in the order dated 17.06.2019 that a person who
appointed the respondent shall be associated in the enquiry,
apparently, is not sustainable in law, for that, the enquiry is to
be conducted by the petitioners bank, and whosoever is to be
associated in such enquiry, is a matter which only the
petitioners bank is competent to decide.
6. It is for the respondent, in case he wants to contest
the enquiry and to produce any person, as a witness before the
Enquiry Committee, he is well entitled to do so, but under no
L
CF'. 1 lbS oF 2021
9-
legal norms the petitioners could have been directed to
associate a person in the Enquiry Committee who had
appointed the respondent. The very direction given by the High
Court in the order dated 17.06.2019 is not supported by any
law nor by any precedent and apparently, such direction has
been passed merely on the asking of the respondent, which in
itself will pollute the enquiry and also rob it of being
independent and transparent. The constant presence of Mr.
Zaka Ashraf, who had been President of the petitioners bank
and also appointed the respondent, will unnecessarily bringf
influence on Enquiry Committee which is also likely to cause
embarrassment and serious prejudice.
7.
The respondent who has appeared in person beforél
the Court has admitted that the Degree of MBA possessed by
him is not recognized by any institution in Pakistan and it is
also not recognized by HEC.
8.
Under Article 187 of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Supreme Court has been given
power to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be
necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter
pending before it. This very power of the Supreme Court is very
much inherent and could be exercised without being
handicapped by any technicality or rule or practice, nor exercise
of such power is dependent upon any application being filed by
a party to the case. It is enough that it is brought to the notice
of the Court, while hearing a case, that an order has been
passed by a forum below which has bearing on the caseYand
CR 1165 of 2023 
ib
causes injustice to one of the parties, and the Court will not be
hesitant for a moment to correct such injustice. Reliance in this
behalf may be made to the cases of The State through Director
General, FIA, Islamabad v. Alif Rehman (2021 SCMR 503), Raja
Khurram Ali Khan and 2 others vs. Tayyaba Bibi and another
(PLD 2020 SC 146) and Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs. Mian
Muhamad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan/Member
National Assembly, Prime Minister's House, Islamabad and 9
others (PLD 2017 SC 265).
9. The direction to the petitioners bank to obtain;
presence of Mr. Zaka Ashraf in the enquiry being conducted
against the respondent, thus, is an order which inherently is
not equitable rather on its face appears to be not consisteit
with the well recognized legal principles of law and therefore,
lacks any legal support. Thus, while exercising power under
Article 187 of the Constitution, the direction of the High Court
of associating the person who had appointed the respondent; in
its order dated 17.06.2019 in Writ Petition No. 226277 of 2018,
is, therefore, set aside.
10.
The petitioners bank shall continue the enquiry dnd
pass order within 15 days after complying with all cddal
formalities. The respondent shall be called by the petitioners
bank, who will appear before the relevant authority.
11.
No further opportunity to the respondent shAll be
provided by the petitioners bank for concluding and passing of
the final order.
I
-S
I
CR1165 of 2021 
- I ii-
12. 
The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the
petition is converted into appeal and allowed.
Bench-I
Islamabad
03.01.2022
'®q' APPROVED FOR REPORTING'
Mahtab/*
