1. Petitioner was Manager in one of the Branches of the respondent bank when in the year 2003 he was served with the statement of allegations and charges and it was ordered that an enquiry be conducted under Section 2-A read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Subsequently enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was visited with the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner made representation which was dismissed and then he filed Constitutional Petition before this Court bearing C.P. No, 342/2008. This petition was dismissed by a short order dated 9.02.2009. The main reasons which prevailed in dismissing the petition was that the respondent bank was not covered by the definition of 'person' under Article 199 of the Constitution and the respondent not being a corporation under the control of the Federal Government or Provincial Government it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Petitioner thereafter preferred Appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No, 1178/2009 and when it was taken up for hearing on 24.11.2010 the appeal was not pressed which was dismissed as not pressed. It was however observed that in such eventuality, the matter shall be heard on merits by the respondent bank in accordance with law without being influenced from any observation made in the High Court judgment. The petitioner thereafter again made a representation to the respondent bank which was turned down. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petition.
2. During the pendency of this petition, an objection was raised as to the maintainability of this petition. The petitioner argued that when the action was taken against the petitioner, the bank was not privatized as the controlling shares of the respondent bank were still with Government of Pakistan and as the action was taken against the petitioner under the statute i,e, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 therefore the respondent bank was amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel for the respondent bank on the other hand, argued that against penalty of compulsory retirement the petitioner 'had filed Constitution Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution which was dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal that was preferred before the Supreme Court against such decision was not pressed hence the order of this Court whereby it was declared that the petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, still holds the field and the petitioner can not re-agitate the same in the second round.
3. In reply the petitioner has argued that when the appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court was not pressed, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to re-agitate the matter before the respondent bank and hence another window of opportunity was opened for him to re-agitate the matter and upon rejection of the representation in the second round the petitioner is entitled to seek redressal of his grievance in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Petitioner was imployed with the respondent bank at the time when Habib Bank was a nationalized bank. We have given a decision on such point that when Habib Bank was controlled by the Federal Government the writ jurisdiction can be invoked for a cause of action that his accrued to an aggrieved person at a time when Habib Bank was not privatized. The action against the petitioner was also taken on the basis of statute i,e, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and hence open to a challenge in Constitutionally jurisdiction however the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1987 SC 145 and 1971 SCM R 447 come in the way of the petitioner as the petitioner himself withdrew his appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court which left the judgment of this Court in the earlier round remain in the field. Any order even if challengeable and could be reversed before the higher forum if allowed to remain in the field then legal consequences do follow from such order. In the present case when the action was taken against the petitioner the shares of Habib Bank were held by the Federal Government but as the petitioner has given up the challenge to his compulsory retirement before the Honourable Supreme Court the principles of res-judicata are attracted in view of the discussion made in the above referred two judgments of Honourable Supreme Court. We are bound by the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and hence can not interfere in the second round and are constrained to hold that this petition is not maintainable, hence this petition is dismissed.