' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that allegedly Noor Muhammad Khan, Cashier mis-appropriated the huge amount of the respondents-Bank. An inquiry was conducted by the respondents-Bank and consequently, F.I.R. No.4 of 2005 was got lodged against the said Noor Muhammad Malik, Cashier and the petitioner, under sections 406/420, P.P.C. At. Police Station Shadman, Lahore. The respondents have withheld the salaries of the petitioner, but the respondents have not terminated the services of the petitioner till date and departmental inquiry as well as investigation of the said case, are still under progress. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the respondents have withheld the salaries of the petitioner without any justification; therefore, the action of the respondents is without lawful authority. He further submits that it is the right of the petitioner to get salaries from the respondents-Bank. He further submits that the respondents have no lawful authority to withhold the salaries of the petitioner till the services of the petitioner are not terminated by the respondents.
3. The Deputy Attorney-General entered appearance on Court's Call, he submits that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the respondents-Bank.
4. The learned Addl. Advocate-General also entered appearance on Court's call, he also submits that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondents-Bank.
5. The learned counsel of the ,petitioner in rebuttal submits that Bank is created under section 3(2) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act,1956, therefore, the Constitutional petition is maintainable as respondent No.1 is acting in connection with affairs of the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not sought any relief against respondent No.1; whereas respondents-Bank has privatized, therefore, respondents-Bank has no concern with affairs of Federation or a Province, which is condition precedent qua the maintainability of the Constitutional petition in terms of Article 199 (1)(a) of the Constitution. In arriving to this conclusion, 'I am fortified law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Zainul Abidin v. Multan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Multan" (PLD 1966 SC 445). The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by following judgments:- "Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad v. United Bank Ltd. And others" (PLD 1987 Pesh. 144); (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1355) and (2001 PLC (C.S.) 207).
In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.