KHALIDA RACHID, J.---The petitioner calls in question the validity of Office Order No. 767, dated 19- 12-1991 passed by Mr. M.A. Aleem, Chief Manager (Personnel), House Building Finance Corporation, Karachi (respondent No. 5) with regard to the dismissal of the petitioner from service as ultra vires, mala fide and without lawful authority.
2. This petition has arisen under the following circumstances: That the petitioner joined the services of House Building Finance Corporation as a General Manager (Finance) in July, 1987 at Karachi. In July, 1988 he was posted at Peshawar as Head of newly created Zone. In August, 1989 he was transferred back to Karachi as General Manager (Finance) where he resumed charge on 5-9-1989. On 12-10-1989 at 10-30 hours when the petitioner was in his office, he was called by Deputy Managing Director to see him in his office. He drove to his office and also met Managing Director, after the meeting in afternoon, he left for Peshawar in order to participate in the "Chehlum" of his deceased brother-in-law who 'had expired to days after his transfer to Karachi.
Being holidays on 13th and 14th, he despatched an application on 14th for sick leave supported by medical certificate. Instead of accepting his sick leave, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Office Order No.951, dated 19-10-1989 for leaving the duty station for Peshawar on 12-10-1989 without obtaining prior permission to leave the station from the competent Authority. After conducting enquiry the petitioner was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service vide Office Order No. 369, dated 21-6-1990. Being aggrieved of his dismissal the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 549/90 which was dismissed as withdrawn for the petitioner was to file representation/departmental appeal. He was however, allowed to file fresh W.P. If need be on payment of Rs.500 as costs. Upon his approach to appellate authority, respondent No.2, Board of Directors converted his dismissal from service into compulsory retirement vide Office Order No 767, dated 19-12-1991. The petitioner through application dated 12-1-1992 requested the respondents for payment of dues accrued to him on his compulsory retirement. The refusal of the respondents to pay the dues forced the petitioner to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 once again through the instant writ petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Atiqur Rahman Qazi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan counsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court. He insisted that misconduct was committed by the petitioner at Karachi, charge-sheet and show-cause notices were formulated at Karachi, disciplinary proceedings were held at Karachi and above all final order against the petitioner was passed at Karachi, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable being. Beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of the provisions of Article 199(a)(i)(ii) of the Constitution.
Repelling this argument Mr. Atiqur Rahman Qazi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner urged that as the petitioner has been served with the show-cause notice at Peshawar, the jurisdiction of this Court has rightly been invoked under Constitutional petition.
4. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate, for respondents. We cannot accept his contention for the reasons that House Building Finance Corporation is a statutory body established for the purpose of providing financial facilities for building of houses in towns and cities in whole of Pakistan. Section 1 (2) of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act") reads as under:-- "(1) ------------------------------------------..
(2)It extends to whole of Pakistan. "
Section 8 of the Act provides the appointment of Managing Director by the Central Government. By virtue of section 9, six members out of eleven members of Board of Directors are appointed by (hr Central Government. Chairman of the Executive Committee is also no nominated by the Central Government. Furthermore section 18 of the Act provides for the maintenance of required offices at each Province with sub-offices and agencies at such places as the Central Government may determine.
5. These provisions provided by aforesaid sections make it clear that Corporation carries out its business throughout Pakistan having Head Office at Karachi and sub-branches in Provinces.
Clause 1(a)(i) of Article 199 of the Constitution invests the High Court with the powers "directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation a Province or a local authority to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do". Under clause (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution "person includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government".
6. The fact that final order of dismissal of the petitioner was initiated at Karachi could not make it material to the point of jurisdiction for the reason that House Building Finance Corporation accordingly is a person which exercises functions in the Provinces in connection with the affairs of the Federal Government. Thus the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for respondents being unsustainable in law is ruled out.
7. Now reverting to the merits of the case the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct and that order of suspension No.951 passed on 19-10- 1989 and consequently declaring him absconder has no legal force and unfounded as the petitioner was present in his office on the date and had even met Deputy Managing Director and Managing Director and informed them that he was leaving for Peshawar in the afternoon. The learned counsel further maintained that enquiry proceedings against the petitioner were not conducted in accordance with the Rules laid down in N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He further contended that statements of 3 witnesses were not recorded in his presence as required and that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of leading evidence in his defence.
8. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan learned counsel for the respondents, admitting at the Bar that statements of the witnesses the record of which has been made available today on the direction of this Court, were recorded in the absence of the petitioner, however submitted that medical leave could not be granted because there was no sickness but the petitioner was retaliating against the rejection of his leave application for to months. Assuming that the petitioner had a foul play but non- recognition of the certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner can also be considered as doubting the professional integrity of medical profession unless it is proven otherwise. The examination of the witnesses in this lethargic manner is not only flagrant violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules but also contrary to the principles of natural justice.
9. Though all the three witnesses admitted the presence of the petitioner in the office the approval of suspension order dated 12-10-1989 on the ground of being absent on 12-10-1989 without prior permission is not well founded.
In view of above discussion we by quashing the enquiry proceedings set aside the impugned order dated 19-12-1991 and remand the case with the direction for initiating fresh enquiry proceedings in accordance with law in peculiar circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.