-Objection case ' The office has directed the petitioner to file the petition before the appropriate Bench of this Court.
2. On the other hand, 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. 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 and 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 and reported for duty at Karachi on 9-4-1998. 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 be judgments in the cases of Raziuddin v. Chairman PIA Corporation (PLD 1992 SC 531) Government of N.-W.F.P. v. I.A. Sherwani and another (PLD 1994 SC 72), M,H. Mirza (1994 SCM R 1024), Mrs. Anisa Rehman (1994 SCM R 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 territorial jurisdiction of this Court, functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, a Province or a local authority. The direction or a declaration cannot be issued to a private person whether natural or legal. In this behalf, reference can be made to Abdul Sattar and 10 others v. Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) etc., and others (NLR 1981 SCJ 478) and Smt. Vidya Verma v. Dr. Shiv Narian 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.