1993 PLP 483 (PLC)

MEHBOOB ELAHI and 2 others W. P. No.9206 of 1992, decided on 1st February, 1993. ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑National Bank of Pakistan (Staff Service) Rules, 1980, R.15(1)‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Reinstatement of employee with back benefits on the ground that neither any show‑cause notice nor disciplinary proceedings contemplated by National Bank of Pakistan (Staff Service) Rules, 1980 preceded the termination order‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioners defended termination of employee on the ground that his appointment was irregular for non‑relaxation of the age limit and was secured through political pressure‑‑ Petitioners being the competent authority, not only failed to apprise the authorities concerned, as to the alleged shortcoming but also confirmed employee's appointment upon successful completion of his probation period and subsequently acted purely mechanically abdicating their discretion in terminating employee's services without application of independent mind‑‑ Blameworthiness, if any, was patently ascribable to petitioners themselves, thus, they could not be, allowed to reprobate the same in Constitutional jurisdiction. Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioners. Resume of the necessary facts for resolving the present controversy as divulged from the record are that Mehboob Elahi, respondent, having been appointed as Cashier on 27‑3‑1990 on six months probation, was confirmed in service by petitioner No. 1 which was terminated by the latter on 1‑6‑1991, legality whereof was successfully questioned by the respondent by virtue of grievance petition contemplated by section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and was reinstated in service with back benefits on 18‑2‑1992 by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad on the ground that neither any show‑cause notice nor the disciplinary proceedings contemplated by the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980 preceded the termination order and in appeal was affirmed vide the impugned order dated 19‑5‑1992 by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal; feeling aggrieved thereby, present Constitutional petition was recoursed contending that the appointment was irregular for non‑relaxation of the age limit and was secured through political pressure. Be that as it may, petitioner No.l being the competent authority, admittedly not only failed to apprise the authorities concerned as to the alleged shortcoming but also confirmed the respondent's appointment upon successful completion of the probation period and subsequently acted purely mechanically abdicating his discretion in terminating the respondent's services without application of independent mind, therefore, blameworthiness, if any, is patently ascribable to the petitioner being highly paid parasite on the national exchequer thus can't be allowed to reprobate the same in this extraordinary jurisdiction; consequently, on this short ground alone, the petition is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./R‑77/L Petition dismissed.