AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against an order dated 31-1-1984 dismissing the petitioner from service of respondent No,1 Bank. It seems that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 8-3-1983, to which he submitted his reply on 17-3-1983. He was personally heard on 29-8-1983.
The inquiry was concluded on 22-9-1983. In pursuance whereof disciplinary action was taken in terms of the respondent No,1's letter dated 29-11-1983 which included withholding two years' increments. The previous order of transfer from Karachi to Peshawar was also implemented. It is the case of respondent No,1 Bank that the petitioner first delayed, the assumption of charge to Peshawar on one pretext or the other and when he took the charge he was in fact working for some insurance company. After 6 days of assuming the charge he went away on leave and then submitted his resignation. After that the impugned order was passed dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground of the charge-sheet dated 8-3-1983.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. G.H. Malik, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 Bank has raised the plea that the petition is not competent as there has not been any violation of any statutory rules and therefore the petitioner is not competent and secondly the conduct of the petitioner has been such which disentitled him to the relief of a petition.
4. The case of the petitioner is that after availing of the leave at Peshawar he submitted his resignation which should have been accepted by respondent No,1 instead of passing the impugned order. In reply to the above submission Mr.G.H. Malik has invited our attention to clause 6 of the Agreement of Employment which gives the option to the employer not to accept the resignation and to dismiss him in case of disobedience etc. without any inquiry.
5. We are inclined to agree with the submission of Mr. G.H. Malik that in the absence of any statutory rules a writ does not lie but at the same time we may observe that after respondent No,1 Bank had imposed punishment/penalty by their letter dated 29-11-1983 in respect of charge-sheet dated 8- 3-1983, it could not have dismissed the petitioner on the basis of the same charge. If petitioner has committed some fresh misconduct the proper course would have been to hold fresh inquiry or to act in terms of Clause 6 if it is legally sustainable. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.