2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.

Through this petition order dated 26.04.2023 passed by respondent-Bank has been assailed, whereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 03.01.2023 through which major penalty of compulsory retirement from employment was imposed upon the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Deputy Director Operation with the respondent-Bank was issued show-cause notice, whereafter inquiry was conducted and ultimately after affording an opportunity of hearing to him he was imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 03.01.2023. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed through the impugned order, hence, this petition.

3. At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has been confronted with the fact that since the services of the petitioner were governed by non-statutory rules, which were for only internal management, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. In spite of his earnest effort, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any plausible explanation, except to argue that in view of a judgment of this Court reported as Bashir Ali Shahzad v. Bank of Punjab through President and 2 others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 1059) this petition is maintainable.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgments reported as Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Muhammad Anwar Mandokhel (2024 SCMR 298), Sarfraz Ali v.Federation of Pakistan throughSecretary Information and Broadcasting, Government of the Pakistan, Islamabad and 10 others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 640), Government of Sindh through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others v. Nizakat Ali and others (2011 SCMR 592) and Izhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate v. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi and others (2008 SCMR 240) has held that every court prior to taking cognizance of and adjudicating upon an issue should firstresort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the Court and if it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon the issue.

7. While discussing the question of maintainability of petitions where the services of an employee are governed by non-statutory rules, it has also been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments Sported as Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others v. Saeed Ahmed Khoso and another (2022 SCMR 1256), Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others v. Pakistan International Airline and another (2019 SCMR 278), Shafique Ahmad Khan and others v. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 377), PIA Corporation v. Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi and others (2015 SCMR 1545), Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others v. Said Rehman and others (2013 SCMR 642), Habib Bank Ltd. v. The State (2013 SCMR 840), Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120), Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 SC 132), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676) and Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad through Chairman and another v. M. Tufail Hashmi (2010 SCMR 1484), that for enforcement of terms and conditions of service of an employee whose services are governed by non-statutory rules, a writ petition, is not maintainable.

8. While specifically dealing with the cases pertaining to the respondent Bank a Division Bench as well as a Single Bench of this Court in judgments titled "Bank of Punjab and others v. Burhan ud Din" passed in I.C.A. No.102 of 2023 and Amir Shahzad Chauclhary v. Chairman Bank of Punjab and 2 others (2015 PLC (C.S.) 423) have held in unequivocal and clear terms that the Rules and Regulations governing the services of the employees of the respondent Bank are non-statutory in nature hence for enforcement of the same a writ petition is not maintainable.

9. Placing the afore referred case law in juxta position with the facts of the present ease it is clear and obvious that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the order of his compulsory retirement from service, which is part of terms and conditions of his service and are governed by non-statutory rules and regulations, which are for the internal functioning of the Bank and framed by the Bank, thus, for assailing the same, the instant petition is not maintainable.

10. As regards the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same having different facts and circumstances is not applicable to the case in hand.

11. In view of the above, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed. UN/A-18/L Petition dismissed.