ORDER IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J.- The office has directed the petitioner to i.e the petition before the appropriate Bench of this Court.
2. On the other had, it is argued that the respondents are mostly based at Lahore and the principal registered office of respondent No. 1 is also at Lahore, therefore, petition is competent.
3. 1 The office objection is overruled.
MAIN CASE
4. It is argued that the petitioner was appointed as Vice President of the respondent-Bank on 23.2.1995 and posted at the Mirpur Branch of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner performed duty to the entire satisfaction of all concerned. It is added that the petitioner then was transferred from Mirpur to Karachi. He accordingly relinquished charge on 1.4.1998. It is argued that on 18.6.1998, he was served with a Charge Sheet on some allegations which were just after thought. In this background, it is prayed in this Constitutional petition that the so-called Charge Sheet was barred by limitation, therefore, superstructure i.e. Suspension and inquiry proceedings were all illegal, incompetent and liable to be set-aside.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent/Bank is that of master and servant, therefore, Writ is not competent, in this behalf, reference can be made to the judgments in the cases of Raziuddin Vs. Chairman PI A Corporation (PLD 1992 SC 531),Government of NWFP Vs. I. A. Sherwani and another (PLD 1994 SC &@), M.H. Mirza (1994 SCM R 1024), Mrs. Anisa Rehman's (1994 SC MR 2232) and Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCM R 1093).
6. This is not all. The direction or declaration under Article 199 of the Constitution 1973 can only be issued to a person performing, within the jurisdiction of this Court, functions in connection with the affairs of olderation, a Province or a local authority. The direction or a declaration cannot be is to a private person whether natural or legal. In this behall reference can be made to Abdul Sattar and 10 others Vs. Member Verma Vs. Dr. Shiv Narain Verma (PLD 1956 SC (India) 141).
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that now only the petitioner cannot maintain a Constitutional petition but the same is also incompetent against the respondents. The result is that the petition is dismissed in limine.