Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑164 of 1981, decided on 31st January, 1982.
(Against the order dated 26th May, 1981 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind).
‑‑ Art. 199 and Provisional Constitution Order, (P. O. 1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Writ jurisdiction‑Vice‑President of National Bank of Pakistan retired from service after inquiry into charges in terms of rules 37 (f) and 39 of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Rules, 1980‑Order challenged in writ petition before High Court‑Writ petition dismissed in limine holding Vice‑President being removable by Board of Directors, and Regulations governing conditions of service having also been framed by National Bank hence constitutional remedy not available Points raised in petition for leave before Supreme Court : (1) whether employee of statutory bodies like National Bank of Pakistan entitled to invoke exercise of writ jurisdiction on grievance arising out of statutory rules governing tenure and terms and conditions of appointment (2) whether such employee can seek constitutional remedy notwithstanding that he does not hold a public or statutory office (3) whether Bye‑laws framed by National Bank of Pakistan under S. 32 (1) (xxviii) of National Bank of Pakistan Act statutory or non‑statutory in character‑Leave to appeal granted‑Appeal before Supreme Court Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
Muhammad Asghar v. Safia Begum P L D 1976 S C 436 rel.
‑‑‑ Compulsory retirement of Vice‑President‑Order alleged to have been passed in disregard of rules‑Whether redressible in writ jurisdic tion‑Supreme Court granting leave to appeal to determine such point‑Appeal before Supreme Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
Muhammad Asghar v. Safia Begum P L D 1976 S C 436 rel.
Manzoor AU Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Ghaury, Advocate -on Record for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 31st January, 1982.
‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 26‑5‑1981 dismissing his constitutional petition challenging his removal from service from the post of Vice‑President of National Bank of Pakistan.
2. After inquiry into certain charges the Executive Board in terms of rule 37 (f )read with rule 39 of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Rules, 1980, retired the petitioner from service and also ordered recovery of Rs. 9,943.59 from him. The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. He took number of objections to the authority taking action against him at various stages of the departmental inquiry, the manner in which the departmental inquiry against him was conducted, and also to the vires of the rules applied in his case. His petition was dismissed in limine with the following operative order :‑
"Obviously the petitioner who was a Vice‑President of the National Bank was removable by the Board of Director his remuneration was being paid by the Bank, his appointment has been made by Board of Directors, the Regulations governing conditions of service had also been framed by the National Bank. In these circumstances we are clearly of the view that the constitutional remedy will not be available in the case of the petitioner. This petition in our view is not maintain able. We dismiss the same in limine."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not claim to be holder of a public office or for that matter a statutory office either. What the petitioner claimed was that a statute and statutory rule having the force of law governed his tenure and the terms and conditions of hi appointment and he was not dealt with in accordance with law a guarantee which is assured to him under Article 4 of the Constitution of 1973. It was further contended that after the nationalization of the Banks in particular the entire management and control over the Banks vested in the Federal Government and the Banks and the functionaries should be deemed to be working in connection with the affairs of the Federation for making out that statutory rules as such applied to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 32 (1) (xxviii) of National Bank Act to show that the bye‑laws framed had to receive the approval of the Central Government for acquiring legal force.
4. We find that the question whether the service rules applicable to the petitioner were statutory or non‑statutory in character requires a determination particularly so in view of the decision of this Court in Muhammad Asghar v. Sera Begum (PLD1176SC436). Besides if the rules are statutory whether non‑compliance with it has taken place and if so, whether such non‑compliance entities the petitioner to maintain a constitutional petition notwithstanding the fact that, he does not hold a public or statutory office as such. Leave to appeal is I, therefore, granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000. Appeal to be heard' on present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents.
Leave granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer