1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, CJ: ‑‑Petitioner is a Senior Vice‑President in IDBP (in category 1(a) of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Regulation, 1961 governing the Conditions of Service of the Employees of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan). According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 11‑8‑1990 by the competent authority, that is, Board of Directors of the Bank. According to the memo of petition, by letter dated 1‑8‑1993 respondents Nos.3 and 4 (Managing Director and Mr. Wajid Ali Khan, Senior Vice‑President) called for comments in respect of some allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegation by his letter dated 8‑8‑1993. On 13‑10‑1993. a formal charge‑sheet was served upon the petitioner in respect of the said allegation and a further allegation that in the reply to the earlier memos the petitioner had used objectionable language. Reply to the charge‑sheet was called for and simultaneously Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner and respondent No.5, Executive Vice‑President was appointed as the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. The said action of the respondents has been challenged in the present Constitution petition. The case of the petitioner presented by Mr. Obaidur Rehman, Advocate, in a nutshell is that the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioner is the Board of Directors of IDBP and not the Managing Director or any one lower in rank. Admittedly, in the Service Regulations of 1961, the competent authority for taking disciplinary action against a Senior Vice‑President is the Board of Directors. On behalf of the Bank, Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi has mainly relied upon section 42 of the IDBP Ordinance XXXI of 1961, which reads as under: "

42. Delegation of powers: The Board may, for the purposes of ensuring efficient and smooth functioning of the Bank and facilitating transaction of its daily business, and for the exercise of all or any of the rights, powers and duties specifically granted and vested under this Ordinance in the Board, delegate to the Managing Director or any other Officer of the Bank, on such terms and conditions as it may think fit, such of its rights, powers and duties as it may deem necessary from time to time." According to Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, learned counsel for the Bank, the Board had delegated its power in respect of disciplinary actions, inter alia, against the Officers in the category of the petitioner and this was done in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank, held at Dacca on 6‑4‑1965. While dealing with Item No.110, the Board of Directors, after considering the case of one M. Hassan, Officer Grade‑III, took the following decision:‑ "At the meeting it was discussed that the Board who can award punishment to the Officers other than category I(d) is also the appellate authority under the Bank's Regulations. It was, therefore, resolved that the Managing Director may award any of the punishments referred to in Regulation 27 of the IDBP (Staff) Service Regulations, 1961 to the Officer(s) of the Bank belonging to any Category." According to Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, the aforesaid delegation of powers by the Board to the Managing Director entitled the Managing Director to take disciplinary action against Officers belonging to any category including the category to which the petitioner belongs. In support of the case of the petitioner, Mr. Obaidur Rehman, advanced the following contentions: (i) Service Regulations of 1961, as amended upto date, were framed with the previous sanction of the Federal Government and, as such, the said Regulations are to be applied to the case of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, under the said Regulations, the competent authority for taking action against the petitioner is the Board of Directors and not the Managing Director and the contention that the delegation of powers by the Board in 1965, as relied upon by Mr.Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, even if the same is regular, cannot amend the Service Regulations without prior approval of the Government. (ii) Delegaton of powers under section 42 of the Ordinance by the Board in favour of the Managing Director can only be for the limited purpose prescribed by section 42 of the Ordinance itself. (iii) Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 6‑4‑1965 is not applicable to Officers of Category 1(a) which Category was created in 1990. (iv) The Managing Director could not, in any case, further delegate the power. It may be observed that the memo of the charge‑sheet has been signed by a Senior Vice‑President and not by the Managing Director. (v) Copy of the Resolution obtained from Bangladesh cannot be relied upon as it is unauthenticated by the Pakistan High Commission. We find no merit in this petition and in our view, petition is liable to r be dismissed. The contention that the attested copy of the Resolution cannot be relied upon by the Bank in the present Constitution petition, as the same is unauthenticated by the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh is not accepted in the circumstances of this case. The Bank has produced an attested copy of the minutes of the Meetings of the Board held on 6‑4‑1965 at Dacca. The fact that the meeting took place or decisions were taken at the meeting have not been denied. Attested copy has been produced by the Bank and there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the attested copy of the minutes of the Meeting. For purposes of deciding this Constitution Petition; the Court is not debarred from referring to it on the ground that the copy has not been attested by the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh. In so far as the contention that the Managing Director could not further delegate the power it may be observed that according to the Bank the decision to charge‑sheet the petitioner was taken by the Managing Director and the Senior Vice‑President served the memo of charge- sheet on the petitioner. In our view, it is not necessary that the memo of charge‑sheet should have been signed by the Managing Director himself. The memo of charge‑sheet starts with the words, "I am directed to state that". In this context, reference may also be made to Regulation 27(4) (ii) which reads as follows:‑ "(ii) The authority competent to award the proposed punishment shall either enquire in to the case itself or obtain an independent report on the cases in writing from an officer specially deputed to investigate the case. This report together with the employees statement shall be laid before the authority competent to award punishment." The contention of Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi is correct the if the Managing Director was the competent authority, he could get the case enquired from an Officer specially deputed to investigate the case and in such an event, on the direction of the Managing Director, memo of charges could be issued under the signature of any other Officer. The main argument of the learned counsel for both the parties depend on applicability of section 42 of the IDBP Ordinance, 1961. According to Mr. Obaidur Rehman this Section is to be given a restricted interpretation and in the face of statutory Regulations framed with the prior approval of the Federal Government, the Board of Directors could not delegate the powers to the Managing Director. It was further submitted that, if such interpretation was possible it would amount to amendment of Regulations, which could not be done without proper amendment with prior approval of the Federal Government. We find no merit in the submission of Mr. Obaidur Rehman. In our view, very wide powers have been conferred upon the Board. Under the said Section, for the exercise of all or any of the rights powers and duties specifically granted, invested under his Ordinance in the Board, the Board has been empowered to delegate such powers to the Managing Director or any other Officer of the Bank on such terms and conditions, as it may think fit. By the said Resolution passed in the meeting of the Board on 6‑4‑1965. After considering that by delegating the power to the Managing Director to take disciplinary action against employees in all categories, a right of appeal to the Board would become available, the delegation of power, not only being regular is also in the interest of all the employe6s, including the petitioner as he gets a right of appeal to the Board in case he is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Managing Director. Mr. Obaidur Rehman had argued that, if the Board had taken action, powers of review would be available to the Board, in case the concerned employee was aggrieved by the orders of the Board but, in our view, the right of appeal gives a much higher and better right to an aggrieved party than a right of review. We, therefore, reiterate that the said Resolution of 1965 of the Board of Directors was not only legal but was also passed to give a right of appeal to the concerned employees, who were otherwise not entitled to such right. The only other contention raised by Mr. Obaidur Rehman, which remains to be considered, is that the Resolution of 1965 would not be applicable to category 1(a) which had been created in 1990. Here also we find no merit in the contention, as the object of passing the said Resolution was to give a right of appeal to categories of all the employees without any distinction and as such the fact that the category 1(a) to which the petitioner belongs was created after 1965 does not make any exception and such employees can be dealt with under the disciplinary regulations and any employee aggrieved by the orders passed by the Managing Director can appeal to the Boar', H.B.T./B‑264/K Petition dismissed.