KARAM ELAHFE CHAUHAN, J.-Muhammad Nawaz (respondent) em--ployee was employed as an Inspector on 1-7-1968, in the office of the District Evacuee Trust Committee, Multan. His service, however, was terminated on 7-1-1969, for misconduct on his part in not disclosing at the time of his aforesaid appointment that he was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property. Northern Zone. The respondent filed a civil suit for a declaration that his removal from service in the aforesaid manner was illegal inasmuch as it was brought about without issuing to him any show-cause notice and without follow--ing the procedure laid down in the relevant rules on the subject. The learned Civil Judge after giving the finding that the removal was illegal nevertheless dismissed the suit by his judgment, dated 10-3-1976 on the ground that he bad no jurisdiction in cases of this type to grant the declaration inasmuch as the remedy of the employee was to approach the departmental authorities and in case of their failure to grant the relief he could approach the High Court by means of a writ petition and could not have filed a civil suit.
2. Respondent/employee filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on 12-11-1977, who reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge and decreed the suit as prayed for.
3. The department namely the Evacuee Trust Property Board and another approached the High Court by means of a civil revision Application No. 250/78 but without any success as the same was dismissed by that Court on 13-3-1979. The department has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. Learned counsel, for the petitioners has argued that even though the removal or dismissal of the employee was illegal nevertheless the employee at the most could have sued for damages for wrongful dismissal from service and could not have been granted a declaration of the kind prayed for by him in the suit, because, according to the learned counsel, the relationship between the petitioners and the employee was that of a master and servant where under the service of the employee was in the pleasure of the master which could not be .Tampered with by decree of civil Court. In this respect he referred to. R. T. H: Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation (PLD 1974 SC 146) for the proposition that violation of regulations pertaining to the terms and conditions of employee of a corporate body were not actionable to claim a declaratory decree regarding validity of their removal. The contention has no merit. In the aforesaid case the powers of the master to deal with the service matters of his employee were not regulated by statutory rules, whereas in the instant case the subject was covered and controlled by regular rules on the subject in the form of Efficiency and Discipline Rules which were adopted by the Evacuee Trust Property Board, as its own rules by means of a proper resolution in their meeting of May, 1969. The matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in C. P. S. L. A. 645/74 titled the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board Lahore, etc. v. Noor Elahi and C. P. L. S. A. 646/74, titled the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board Lahore, etc. v. Muhammad Ramzan, wherein it was held that dismissal in violation of those rules was illegal The actual passage in the judgment of this Court, dated 14-11-1974 in the above cases reads as follows :- "It appears from the order passed by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court on the two Constitution Petitions that the Board at its 6th Meeting held in May 1969, passed the following resolution :-- "Agreed. Central Government Rules would apply to the Board's employees for all intents and purposes."
Under paragraph 43 of the scheme the Board is authorised to make rules to carry out the; purposes of the scheme framed under sec--petition 16-A.I) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita--petition) Act 1958, and under section 14(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Paragraph 16 of the Scheme provides that no employee of the Board shall be dismissed or otherwise punished except in accordance with the rules framed by the Board and approved by the Central Government. In our opinion the aforesaid resolution amounted to making of the rules by the Board.
It was not disputed before the learned Chief Justice that till such time the Board framed its own rules, the employees were governed by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1960, framed by the Central Government. Admittedly these rules were not followed in the cases of the two respondents and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned orders of the learned Chief Justice. Both the petitions are accord--ingly dismissed."
5. Learned counsel has not been able to distinguish the present case from the precedent above- mentioned. Even otherwise it is well-settled that where statutory rules govern the service conditions of an employee, then the pleasure of the master stands surrendered to the extent the matter is covered by the relevant rules. See Syed Akbar A.I Bokhari v. State Bank of Pakistan and 7 others (PLD 1977 Lah. 234).
6. The result is that the impugned order being quite in conformity with the law on the subject the same calls for no interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
M. Z. M.