FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--By this constitutional Petition, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad calls in question the suspension from service order dated 2-10-1978 and the dismissal from service order dated 23- 11-1978 made with respect to him by the respondents with a further prayer that the respondents be directed to re-instate him in service and pay him all his dues. The admitted facts giving rise to this constitutional petition may, in brief, be narrated as under: Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad was employee of the United Bank Limited and in the year 1977 was posted as Manager of the Branch of the said Bank located at Contractors Colony, Tarbela. While in that capacity he issued two guarantees, signed jointly with Mr. Naseem Ahmad Dar, his second Officer, each for Rs.25,00,000 and for Rs.16,72,906 respectively on behalf of M/s. Pakistan Trading House, Lahore and M/s. Mid West Corporation, Lahore favouring Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantt.
For the mobilization of advance. While issuing these guarantees he was said to have committed some irregularities of serious nature, which are specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 20-9-1978 (copy Annexure-C) served upon him. By this charge-sheet he was made to explain as to why and under what circumstances such irregularities were committed by him rendering the Bank liable for such a huge amount and as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
He was further directed to submit his reply within 24 hours from the receipt of the said charge- sheet. Having failed, as alleged, to submit his explanation to the charges contained in the said charge-sheet by the 2nd of October, 1978, he was by letter of the said date (copy Annexure-D) suspended from service and was advised to report to the Zonal Office during the period of his suspension. Sheikh Rahseed Ahmad submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet on 8-10-1978, (copy annexure-E)-.Which was, however, not found satisfactory by the competent authority who dismissed him with effect from the date of order made on the 23rd November, 1978 (copy Annexure-F). These orders have been assailed by the petitioner (Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad) in this Constitutional Petition, as already mentioned, on the grounds that he had been punished for no offence because the action taken by him was within his authority vesting in him on behalf of the Bank, that while issuing guarantees he did not act in a manner detrimental to the interest of the bank nor did he expose the Bank to any financial risk, that in fact he wanted to benefit the Bank by earning profit on the basis of guarantees issued by him and the Bank in fact did earn that profit, that the time limit allowed to him for submitting explanation to the charge-sheet was unusually short in view of which he could not have been suspended and that he had been discriminated against when in similar circumstances similar action against the officers mentioned in the writ petition was not taken.
2. The main grounds urged by the petitioners were controverted by the respondent in the written statement filed by them. Preliminary objection relating to the competency of the writ petition was also taken by the respondents in the joint written statement filed by them.
3. We have heard at length Mr. Atiq-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the' petitioner and Mr. Fazal Hussain, Advocate for the respondents, and with their assistance we have also gone through the record placed before us.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner was in the service of the respondents and while working as Manager of a branch of the Bank already mentioned he was charge-sheeted and dismissed from service after his explanation to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory. The suspension order and the dismissal order passed by the respondents in respect of him had already -been noticed.
Although impugned action with respect to the petitioner was taken by the respondents in the year 1978, yet, quite strangely, both the learned counsel appearing for the parties placed before us the rules called the United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981, which took effect, as is obvious from these rules, from the 1st January, 1982. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, invited our attention, in the course of his arguments, to Annexure-E to this petition which is a letter issued by the Senior Executive Vice-President containing procedure which was to be adopted for taking the =disciplinary action against Officers/ Executives of Banks/ Financial Institutions, which in the letter itself were directed to be treated as Standing Instructions for the purpose. This letter is dated the 16th 'June, 1981.
5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel representing the respondents raised a preliminary objection that 'the service rules governing. The employees of the Bank, including the petitioner, having been framed under Articles 121 & 121 (22) of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of United Bank Limited, read with Section 11 (4) of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, were not the Statutory Rules and for that reason violation thereof, though not complained of by the petitioner herein, could not be called in question in writ jurisdiction, and the rule of Master and Servant stood attracted to the case. He submitted that for this reason writ petition is liable to dismissal. He sought support for his. Argument from the authority of this Court in Syed Qamar. Shah's case (PLD 1985 Peshawar 106) and from the authority of the Supreme Court in the Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another's case (PLD 1984. Supreme Court 170). While replying to this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that section 11 (4) of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 being an enabling provision gave power to the Executive Board to frame service rules for the employees of the Bank and for that reason these rules are to be regarded as Statutory Rules and action in constitutional jurisdiction is, therefore, maintainable. The learned counsel supported his argument by the authority of the Lahore High Court in Humayun Khan's case (PLD 1984 Lahore 35).
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised before us `as well as the law cited at the Bar. In our humble view the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents carry weight. The Rules referred to by both the learned counsel were framed by the Executive Board in exercise of the powers vested in it by the Articles of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the "United Bank Limited read with section 11 (4) of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, already referred to. This Act and section 11 (4) thereof did not confer any power on the Executive Board to frame rules for the purposes of the Act, which power under the said Act vested in the Federal Govt.
Under section 20 thereof. Section 11 of the said Act contains provisions mostly pertaining to the management of the Banks and their day-to-day business and has nothing to do with, the rule- making ,power which vests in the Federal Government under section 20 thereof. It at the most may be regarded as having kept alive such power vesting in the Board under Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank and cannot be regarded . As independent source of such power.
It is not disputed before us that the Service Rules of the employees of the Bank have not been framed by the Federal Government under section 20 of the said Act. In a similar case (Syed Qamar Shah's case referred to above) of-an employee of the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, a Bank nationalised under, the said Act, this Court has already considered the matters involved in this petition and 4he conclusion reached was, with which we are in respectful agreement, that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner therein were not governed by Statutory Rules, and, as such, he could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Our conclusion in the case of the petitioner is also the same. PLD 1984 Supreme Court 170 also supports this view. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, being distinguishable on facts,` is not applicable to this case. In the cited case the prayer made was for cancelling the order of transfer made in respect of the petitioner of that case and no prayer therein for his restoration to office was made, with the result that the order sought therein was not in the nature of mandamus but was 'in the nature of certiorari. In the present .Case, however, the prayer made essentially is for restoration to office which the petitioner was holding before his dismissal from service, and also for the grant of back benefits, which clearly fall, in the circumstances of this case, out of the scope of writ jurisdiction on the basis of , the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the service rules framed by the Executive- Board in the light of the recommendations of the Pay Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions would attain the status of Statutory Rules, because those recommendations were of the nature of recommendations only in so far as the officers and executives are concerned and the learned counsel .For the petitioner failed to bring any provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to our notice whereunder recommendations of such like nature by such a Commission in respect of such like employees could attain the status of Statutory Rules, which appear not to have been framed under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance but under the rule making power vesting in the Executive Board under the relevant Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank.
8. The record furnished by the respondents clearly indicates that the explanation furnished by the other officers was partly accepted by the Bank authorities who in the circumstances were best judges of the facts and ford that reason the question of the petitioner having been discriminated against does not arise.
9. The writ petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. We shall in the circumstances make no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.