1. ' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that petitioner was an officer of the respondents. The respondents received complaints against the petitioner and other officers of the Gujranwala Development Authority. The competent authority constituted a fact finding committee consisting of Director-General Housing and Physical Planning and Superintending Engineer PHE Circle, Lahore. The committee probed into the matter and submitted report dated 6-6-1996 against the officers of the Gujranwala Development Authority with the recommendation that an officer conversant with Rules and Regulations in financial matters be deputed to thrash out the affairs of G.D.A. And submit findings. The competent authority appointed inquiry officer who submitted report against the petitioner on 6-6-1997. Thereafter the authorized officer provided personal hearing to the petitioner on 5-8-1997 and the case was placed before the competent authority who passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 14-3-1998 which was conveyed to the petitioner on 21-3-1998. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that finding of the inquiry officer is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record as is evident from paras-17 and 18 of the report which are at page 49 of the Constitutional petition. The petitioner was held guilty qua charge No.1 by the inquiry officer merely holding guilty of overdoing beyond expressly stated/delegated powers which is not an offence under the provisions of Punjab Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. He further submits that finding on charge No.5 is also not sustainable in the eye of law as is evident from para-48 of the inquiry report which is at page-73. He further urges that petitioner is not the competent authority to sell the plot in question to the private persons/illegal occupants. In fact the petitioners has processed the case under the direction of the competent authority. Thereafter, the competent authority has passed the order which is in public interest and also in good faith and the authority did not sustain loss as the land in question was sold to the illegal occupants which is not offence in any canon of justice coupled with the fact that action of even Director-General is in accordance with the past practice of the respondent authority consisting of 50 years. He further submits that action has been initiated against the petitioner and his co-accused under the influence of managements of daily 'Khabrain' as the office of daily 'Khabrain' is in the plaza and officers of the GDA asked them to pay the rent in accordance with law which is bone of contention between the GDA officers and the management of daily 'Khabrain'. Due to this annoyance a news item appeared in the said newspaper on the basis of which the action has been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner and others. Therefore, action of the respondent is mala fide. He further urges that action of the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976 in view of section 2(C),4(3),7,8,9 and 17 of the said Act.
3. Learned legal advisor of the GDA submits that respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner after receiving various complaints against the petitioner and others. Consequently the competent authority has firstly appointed fact finding committee which has given report against the officers of the GDA at the relevant time. Thereafter the competent authority has appointed inquiry officer who has submitted report against the petitioner and others after completing legal formalities. Subsequently the authorized officer has provided personal hearing to the petitioner and finally the competent authority has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the action of the respondent. Therefore, Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is of master and servant. Learned law officer submits that Tribunal below has given finding of fact against the petitioner after completing all the legal formalities. This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding of the Tribunal below. Therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that impugned action has been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under the influence of management of daily 'Khabrain'. He further urges that petitioner is a servant of statutory body. Therefore, Constitutional petition is maintainable and principle of master and servant is not attracted in the present case.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. I would like to decide the preliminary objection first qua the maintainability of the Constitutional petition on the well-known principle of master and servant. It is better and appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of the Punjab Development of Cities Act 1976 (Act XIX of 1976) and relevant provisions of Regulations of the respondent to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976 "Section 2(c) Authority means the Development Authority created under section 4 of this Act.
2. ' Section 2(h) Government means the Government of the Punjab.
3. ' Section 4(3) The Authority shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal with powers, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and transfer property both movable and immovable, and may, by its name sue or be sued.
4. ' Section 7. Powers and functions of Authority----(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules framed thereunder, the Authority may exercise such powers and take such measures as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
5. ' Section 8 Delegation.---The Authority may, by general or special orders, delegate to the Director- General or a Committee constituted under section 10 or a member or an officer of the Authority, any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act, subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose.
6. ' Section 9 Appointment of officers and employees.---The Authority may appoint such officers, advisors, experts, consultants and employees, as it cansiders necessary for the efficient performance of its functions on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit.
7. ' Section 11. Appointment and terms of office (1) The Director-General shall be appointed by Government an such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Government.
(2) The Director-General shall be the Chief Executive of the Authority and shall---
(a) be a whole time officer of the Authority; and
(b) perform such duties as may be assigned to him and exercise such powers as may be delegated to him by the Authority.
8. ' Section 16. Directions by Government.---The Authority shall, in discharging its functions, act and be guided, by such directions as Government may give to it from time to time.
9. ' Section 43 Power to make rules.---Subject to the provisions of this Act, Government may make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act.
10. ' Section 44. Power to make regulations.---Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules framed thereunder, the Authority may make regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."
11. ' The competent authority issued Notification dated 12-10-1991 under section 16 of the said Act to allow the Director-General and all the officers of GDA Gujranwala to exercise the powers and functions presently in force in FDA, Faisalabad in all respects vide Notification dated 12-10-1991.
12. ' Gujranwala Development Authority also framed Regulations under the name and style "the Gujranwala Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service Regulation, 1991.
13. Regulation 22 is reproduced hereunder:-- "22. Subject to the provision of the Act, these regulations and the schedule, the following rules/amendments shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Authority.
(i) The West Pakistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966.
(ii) The Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975)."
14. ' Mere reading the aforesaid provisions of law and regulation makes it crystal clear that the Director-General and all the Officers of the GDA are empowered to exercise the powers and functions presently in force in Faisalabad Development Authority vide Notification dated 12-10-1991.
15. Meaning thereby, the regulation of FDA are applicable with regard to exercising powers by the Director-General and officers of the GDA on the well-known principle of legislation by adoption/reference which is a valid method under the law as the principle laid down by this Court in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation's case (PLD 1979 Lahore 415). The source of issuing Notification dated 12-10-1991 is section 16 which is to be read with sections 7,9 and 11 of the said Act which did not authorize the Government of the Punjab to frame Regulation with regard to the terms and conditions of the officers of the GDA. The regulation framed by the respondents in the year 1991 also does not mention a single clause of the said Act under which the said regulation is framed.
16. The regulation in question is non-statutory in character as per principle laid down by this Court in Ch. Abdul Rashid's case (PLD 1979 Lahore 803). The Gujranwala Development Authority has adopted Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 by way of adoption or legislation by reference mutatis mutandis to the employees of the authority in view of Regulation 22(ii) above. It is also settled principle of law that Service Regulations of Gujranwala Development Authority are not statutory in nature. Adoption of Punjab Civil Service (Efficiency and Discipline)
17. Rules 1975 by the Gujranwala Development Authority would not make the said service regulation statutory in nature. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court in the following judgments:-- ' Zia Ghafoor Piracha's case (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1404) Zia Ghafoor Piracha's case (2004 SCMR 35)
18. Muhammad ' Anwar Hussain's case (2000 PLC (C.S.) 678) Muhammad Abid Rana's case (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1068)
19. ' Zia Ghafoor Piracha's case (2002 PLC (C.S.) 1571) (It is pertinent to mention here that the said case is upheld by the ' Honourable Supreme Court in the said judgment).
20. ' It is also settled principle of law that by mere application/incorporation of Civil Servants Act or statutory rules the relationship of master and servant to the employer and employee does not get transformed into a statutory relationship as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hamid Mukhtar Piracha's case (1984 PSC 42). It is pertinent to mention here that Honourable Supreme Court has laid down aforesaid principle while interpreting Rules of FDA, Faisalabad which is synonymous to GDA, Gujranwala. As mentioned above principle of master and servant is attracted in this case. Therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Anwar Hussain's case (PLD 1984 SC 194) Anwar Hussain's case (1992 SCMR 1112)
21. ' Capt. Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh's case (PLD 1992 Kar. 190)
22. ' Arshad Ahmad's case (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1355) Riaz-ud-Din's case (PLD 1992 SC 531)
23. ' Principal Cadet College Kohat's case (PLD 1984 SC 170)
24. ' Anwar Hussain's case (PLD 1984 SC 194) Syed Jamil Ahmad's case (1993 SCMR 346)
25. ' In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the principle of master and servant is attracted in all respects. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.