1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The respondent herein was employed as a Chowkidar by the petitioner. On 4th of July, 1970 a surprise check was conducted by the Branch Manager who found him sleeping in a room of the quarter housing the clearing house; and as it was a case of dereliction of duty, he was charge-sheeted on 6th of July, 1970 and called upon to show cause but the explanation which he submitted was found to be unsatisfactory. The petitioner, thereupon, appointed its Accounts Officer to hold an inquiry into the charge but the respondent did not cooperate so as to defend himself. The enquiry officer, thereupon, held him guilty of the charge from the material produced before him. This action was taken against him under Regulation 22 of the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulations. Under Regulation 22 (ii) of the Regulations the Manager of the Quetta Branch, who was alone competent to pass an order for his dismissal, after examining the report and affording him an opportunity to show cause, dismissed him from service by order, dated 24th of October, 1970. His appeal to the Governor of the State Bank failed.
2. ' Thereupon, he filed a suit on 21st of March, 1971, seeking a declaration against the order of dismissal which was registered on the ground that it was not maintainable. A further objection was taken that the Civil Court could not entertain the suit in the light of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was rejected and a revision against that order also failed. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit by judgment dated 17th of Noveber, 1977. The first appeal succeeded as it was allowed by judgment, dated 18th of July 1979. The petitioner, thereupon, challenged that decision in second appeal in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, but did not succeed as it was dismissed by judgment, dated 22nd of December, 1980.
3. Leave to appeal is sought on the grounds firstly, that the High Court was in error in holding that the respondent was a person employed in the administration of the State and hence the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were not applicable to his case; secondly, that the High Court went wrong in holding that the declaratory suit was maintainable at the instance of the petitioner when there was no controversy as to the breach of any Rules relating to the enquiry under the Regulations; and thirdly, that the High Court had wrongly held that the Manager, who was the only officer under Regulation 22 of the Regulations competent to dismiss, could not award the punishment of dismissal, as he was biased and that such exercise of power offended against the rules of natural justice.
4. ' As these submissions require consideration, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner. In the meantime, we would direct the stay of fresh inquiry ordered by the High Court. Security for costs Rs,2,000. The appeal arising out of this petition shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.