' AJM AL MIAN, J.-The petitioner in this petition has prayed for the following reliefs :- "It is therefore prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :-
(a) hold and declare that the suspension of the petitioner under the circumstances by issue of impugned order (Annexure 'C' read with Annexure R-4-A) is illegal without lawful authority and/or of legal effect in view of Annexure 'D' ;
(b) declare further that the petitioner has been continuing as Chief Officer of the Union Society, as if no order or suspension was passed;
(c) prohibit and restrain the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from giving effect to the impugned order as they are not permitted by law to do the same ;
(d) award costs of the petition."
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was employed with the Karachi Co-operative' Housing Societies Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Union) since 1972. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as an Accountant during the period commencing from 1972 to 1977 and thereafter on 1-12-1977 he was appointed as the Chief Officer of the Union. It seems that in 1973 the Government of Sind under a notification issued under rule 48 of the Co-operative Societies A Rules, 1927 superseded the Managing Committee of the Union and appointed an Administrator. It has been averred by the petitioner that on 24-10-1981 respondent No, 2 who was appointed as the Administrator of the Union some time back visited the petitioner's office alongwith respondent No, I and informed him that he was under suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27-10-1981 the petitioner made a representation to the Secretary, Labour and Co-operation, Government of Sind and that in response to the above representation the Secretary passed an order on 29-10-1981 directing the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karachi, to allow the petitioner to continue to work as the Chief Officer and not to appoint respondent No, 1 as the Chief Officer. It seems that respondent No, 2 also made a representation to the Senior Minister (who was incharge of the Department) who by his order contained in the Private Secretary's letter dated 23-11-1981 addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies stayed the implementation of the "directive issued by the Secretary through his aforesaid order dated 29-10- 1981. It may be observed that the present petition was filed by the petitioner on 10-11-1981 1. e. Prior to the passing of the aforesaid order by the Senior Minister. The petitioner upon passing of the above order by the Senior Minister amended the petition and prayed for the amended reliefs, impugning the above order of the Senior Minister.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. G. M. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the Secretary had exercised the jurisdiction under section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Senior Minister was not competent to suspend the above order as under the amended rule 13 of the Sind Government Rules of Business, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) in case of tie between the Minister and the Secretary the matter was to be referred to the.
Chief Minister, whose powers at present are being exercised by the Governor.
3. On the other hand it has been urged by Mr. Sher Afgan that the petition is not bona fide and that the petitioner has no legal right to agitate through a writ petition being an employee of a Co- operative Society, the principle of master and servant would be applicable and that in any case the order of the Minister was legal.
4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be pertinent to refer to rules 13, 17 and 19 and the amendment made in rules 13 and 17 which read as follows :- "13. (1) In the event of difference of opinion between Departments, the Minister of the Department primarily concerned shall submit the dispute to the Chief Minister for decision.
(2) In case of difference of opinion between Minister and Secretary, the views of the Minister shall prevail but the Minister shall submit in writing such case to the Chief Minister for orders, if any.
17. (1) the Minister shall -
(a) be responsible for all matters concerning his Department, provided that no important decision shall be taken except with the approval of the Chief Minister, and in any case where prior approval is for any reason not possible the Chief Minister shall be informed as soon as possible ;
(b) be responsible for conducting the business of his Department in the Assembly ;
(c) submit cases to the Chief Minister as required by these rules ; and
(d) keep the Chief Minister informed of any important case disposed of by him but not already referred to the Chief Minister.
(2) A Minister may, with the approval of the Chief Minister and shall, if ordered by the Chief Minister in respect of any Department in his charge delegate his powers to the Secretary of that Department.
(3) Any order passed by a Minister or any authority to whom the Minister has delegated his powers to pass such order, in respect of any subject or matter allocated to the Department in the charge of such Minister, with or without approval of the Chief Minister as provided in these rules, shall be deemed to be the order passed by the Government.
19. The Secretary shall -
(a) assist the Minister and the Chief Minister in the formulation of policy ;
(b) execute the sanctioned policy ;
(c) submit all proposals for legislation to the Cabinet in accordance with Part VIII of these rules ;
(d) keep the Minister generally informed of the working of the Department and important cases disposed of by him ;
(e) suggest a definite line of action while submitting a case for order. Of the Minister ;
(f) resubmit the case to the Minister inviting his attention to the relevant rules or regulations or Government policy where the Minister's orders appear to involve a departure from rules, regulations or Government policy ;
(g) issue, subject to any general or special order of Government in this behalf, standing orders specifying the cases or class of cases, which may be disposed by an officer subordinate to him ; and
(h) ensure strict compliance of these rules in his Department. Amendment (Notification No, S 0 IX-R. E. G. (S. & G. A. D.) 5/3-74 (Pt. II), dated 16-4-1981.
1. In rule 13, for sub-rule (2) the following shall be substituted :- "(z) In case of difference of opinion between the Minister and the Secretary, the Chief Minister shall make an appropriate order in the case submitted to him under rule 17(1) (e)."
"2. In rule 17, in sub-rule (1) after clause (d) following clause (e) shall be added :- "(e) submit the case to the Chief Minister for his orders, if on resubmission of the case under rule 19(f) he still disagrees with the Secretary."
' Notification No, S.
0. IX-R. E. G. (S. & G. A. D.)/5/3-74 (Pt. 11), dated 21-5-1981.
' In pursuance of the proclamation of the fifth day of July, 1977 and in exercise of the powers conferred by the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the Government of Sind are pleased to make the following amendments in the Sind Government Rules of Business, 1973, namely :-
(1) In rule 2, for clause (xvi) the following shall be substituted :"(xvi) "Minister" means a Minister appointed by the Chief Minister."
(2) For rule 17-A, the following shall be substituted :- "17-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'C' shall, during the period of Martial Law, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chief Minister."
5. It may be noticed that under sub-rule (2) of rule 13 in case of difference of opinion between the Minister and Secretary the views of the Minister were to prevail subject to order of the Chief Minister.
The above sub-rule (2) was substituted by the above-quoted notification dated 16.4-1981 providing that in case of difference of opinion between the Minister and the Secretary, the Chief Minister shall make an appropriate order in the case submitted to him under rule 17(1) (e). It may also be noticed that by the above notification dated 16-4-1981 a new clause (e) was also added in above-quoted rule 17 providing that the case would be submitted to the Chief Minister for his order if on resubmission of the case under rule 19 (f) the Minister still disagrees with the Secretary. It may also be noticed that by the above-quoted notification dated 21-5-1981 a new rule, namely rule 17-A was added to the rules providing that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, the Martial Law Administrator, Zone C shall during the period of Martial Law exercise the power and perform the functions of the Chief Minister.
6. On the basis of the above amendment, it has been urged by Mr. G. M. Saleem that since there was a difference of opinion between the Secretary and the Senior Minister, the matter should have been submitted to Governor under newly-added rule 17-A. In our view, the above contention is devoid of any force as the difference of opinion between the Secretary and the Minister concerned referred to in the above rules 13 and 17 relate to the working of the Department and not with reference to the exercise of power under an independent enactment. There can be a case in which a Secretary may put up a departmental scheme, to which the Minister may disagree, in such a situation by virtue of the above-amended rule 13 read with rule 17-A, the matter is to be submitted to the Governor. However, we are concerned in the instant case with the exercise of powers under section 64-A of the Co-operative Socreties Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It may be advantageous to reproduce the above section which reads as follows :- "64-A. Power of Provincial Government and the Registrar to call for proceedings of subordinate officers and to pass orders thereon.-The Provincial Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any officer subordinate to them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it shall appear to the Provincial Government or the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so-called for should be modified, or annulled or reversed, the Provincial Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may pass such order thereon as to it or him may deem fit."
7. It may be noticed that by virtue of the above section the Provincial Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceeding of any officer subordinate to them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of proceeding of such officer etc. The question which requires consideration is whether the term "The Provincial Government" used in section 64-A of the Act relates to the Secretary of the Department or to the Minister concerned. It may be observed that there is no ambiguity in this aspect as sub-rule (3) of rule 17 quoted hereinabove is very clear, which provides that any order passed by a Minister or any authority to whom the Minister has delegated the power to pass such order in respect of any subject or matter allocated to the Department in the charge of such Minister that order with or without approval of the Chief Minister as provided in these rules shall be deemed to be the order passed by the Government. So an order passed by a Minister is to be deemed to be an order passed by the Provincial Government. If the Minister would have delegatedl" the power to the Secretary as per rules, the order of the Secretary would have been deemed to be the order of the Government in terms of the above sub-rule (3). Mr. G. M. Saleem has not produced any document to indicate that the Senior Minister who was incharge of the Department had delegated his power to the Secretary as per business rules for the purpose of exercising power under section 64-A of the Act. In this view of the matter the Secretary could not have passed the order on 29-10-1981 under section 64-A of the Act and hence the Senior Minister could intervene in the matter.
' Furthermore, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as there are certain serious allegations of irregularities against him which are still at the investigation stage.
The main object of the above petition seems to be to get the suspension order suspended and to continue to act as the Chief Officer in spite of the suspension order.
8. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the petition which is dismissed with costs.