2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioner, an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 (adopted by the respondent Board) and vide order dated 17‑9‑1999 penalty of stoppage of three, increments was imposed by the competent Authority. On 6‑1‑2000 a notice for enhancement of the penalty was issued to the petitioner which was assailed in the writ petition as originally filed primarily on the ground that the order imposing penalty on the petitioner had attained finality and the matter could not be re opened.

2. In the report and parawise comments filed on behalf of the respondent Board the position taken was that the impugned show‑cause notice was issued on the basis of the direction of the controlling authority i.e. The Government of the Punjab. The writ petition was accordingly amended and the direction aforesaid of the Government of the Punjab was also assailed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the controlling authority had no jurisdiction to direct reopening of the matter. He further contended that under rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules it was only the Government who could enhance the punishment and, therefore, the impugned show‑cause notice issued by the respondent Board was wholly without lawful authority.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that the relationship of the employees of the Board with their employer is that of master and servant and, therefore, no interference is called for. Reliance was placed on judgment, dated 7‑12‑1999 of a learned Division Bench of this Court, passed in Writ Petition 23674 of 1998 according to which service of the employees of the Board was not governed by any statutory rules and mere adoption of the E & D Rules will not convert the relationship of the employees and the employer into, statutory.

5. Controverting this contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on The Evacuee Trust Property Board and another v. Muhammad Nawaz (1983 SCMR 1275) to contend that by adopting Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, relationship of the petitioner with his employer became statutory.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Merely because the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules have been adopted, the relationship of the petitioner with the respondent Board does not become statutory as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hamid Mukhtar Piracha v. Faisalabad Development Authority, Faislabad (1984 PSC 42), According to recent judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.23674 of 1998 the aforesaid rules do not qualify as statutory rules. I respectfully follow the aforesaid judgment.

7. As far as the direction of the Government of the Punjab is concerned, the powers of the Controlling Authority have been specified in section 12 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (No. XIII of 1976). And to my mind the impugned direction is fully covered by subsections (5) and (6) of section 12 which are reproduced as under: "(5) If the Controlling Authority is satisfied that any proceedings of a Board or a Committee is not in conformity with the provisions of this Act or Regulations or Rules framed thereunder or in public interest, the Controlling Authority may, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section by order in writing, annul such proceeding. Provided that before making any such order, the Controlling Authority shall, through the Chairman, call upon the Board or the Committee, as the case may be, to show cause why such an order should not be made. (6) The Controlling Authority may, from, time to time, direct a Board to conduct its affairs and to perform its functions in such manner as may be specified."

8. For what has been stated above, no case for interference is made out. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.TJM‑155/L Petition dismissed.