2010 GBLR 88 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.

This petition under Article 28(3) of the Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994 has been preferred by Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and other petitioners herein against the judgment, dated 12-11-2008 rendered by the Chief Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent assailing the order of his dismissal from service on the charge of misappropriation of bank money. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent was employed in MCB as Grade-II, Officer and while posted as Manager Skardu Branch of the Bank was found involved in financial irregularities which were detected by a Bank Audit Inspection Team. Consequently the bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and having considered his reply to the show-cause notice not satisfactory, appointed an Inquiry Officer at Islamabad to hold a regular inquiry into the allegation of misappropriation. The Inquiry Officer at the conclusion of the enquiry having found the respondent guilty of the charge submitted report accordingly and the competent authority on the basis of inquiry report awarded the respondent major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 21-4-2008. The order of dismissal from service was assailed by the respondent before the Chief Court in a writ petition and Chief Court vide judgment, dated 12-11-2008 allowed the writ petition with the direction of reinstatement of respondent in service. The petitioners being not satisfied with the judgment of Chief Court have challenged the same before this Court through this petition inter alia on the grounds:

Firstly, the Muslim Commercial Bank is a private bank and staff service rules of the bank are not statutory rules to be enforced through the process of writ petition and secondly the relation between the Bank and respondent being that of Master and Servant, the writ petition before Chief Court was not maintainable rather respondent could avail the remedy of civil suit for damages before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The Muslim Commercial Bank admittedly is a private bank with its Zonal and Head Office at Islamabad and Lahore. The administrative and other affairs of the bank are controlled by its management at its Zonal and Head Office. The alleged financial irregularities were committed by the respondent at Skardu and inquiry into these irregularities was held at Islamabad whereas the final order of dismissal of respondent from service was also passed by the Circle Office at Islamabad on the direction of Head Office at Lahore. In view thereof the essential question for determination would be whether cause of action for availing legal remedy arised in favour of respondent at the place where the final order was passed or at Skardu where he was posted at the time of alleged transaction of misappropriation. The learned counsel for the respondent without meeting the objection to the maintainability of writ petition before the Chief Court and satisfying us about the jurisdiction of the Court in the Northern Areas to adjudicate the matter submitted, that since the alleged misappropriation took place at Skardu therefore, the Courts in Gilgit Baltistan would have the concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and objection relating to the jurisdiction of Chief Court to entertain the writ petition has no legal force. The question relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Northern Areas was to be necessarily determined with reference to the cause of action in terms of section 20 of C.P.C., which provides as under:

"Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises

Subject to the limitations aforesaid every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction

(a) The defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) Any of the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Under the law a suit can be filed within local limits of the Court, within the jurisdiction of which cause of action arised wholly or partly. The terms cause of action refers to the infringement of legal right and not merely the allegation on the basis of which such right is infringed. In the present case the proceedings against the respondents were initiated at Islamabad for the alleged misappropriation during his posting at Skardu and final order of his removal from service was also passed by the competent authority at Islamabad, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that alleged transaction of misappropriation happened at Skardu where the petitioner-Bank also carries business, the cause of action would certainly arise in favour of respondent out of the order of his dismissal from service which was passed at Islamabad and not at Skardu where the transaction of misappropriation of money took place during his tenure as Manager. The cause of action in such cases may be referred to the grounds on the basis of which relief is sought and not only with reference to the place of transaction on the basis of which an action is taken. The respondent claimed the right to continue in bank service which was infringed by the petitioners at Islamabad and thus cause of action wholly or partly arised in favour of respondent within the local limit of Courts at Islamabad. The mere fact that the transaction of misappropriation took place in the Skardu Branch of the Bank would not give rise to the cause of action for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of Courts in Northern Areas, consequently, the contention of the learned counsel that cause of action for the purpose of availing remedy against the order of dismissal of respondent from service arised out of the alleged transaction of misappropriation at Skardu where petitioners also carry business, therefore, the Courts in Northern Areas would have jurisdiction to competently adjudicate the matter has no substance. The respondent was aggrieved of the action taken against him by the bank at Islamabad and final order of dismissal from service was also passed within the local limits of court at Islamabad, therefore, the Courts in Northern Areas would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In consequence to the above discussion, we while holding that the Chief Court was not competent to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate the matter for want of jurisdiction set aside the impugned judgment. The respondent may if so advised seeking benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act avail appropriate remedy before the proper Court in accordance with law. In implementation of the judgment of Chief Court, the bank has reinstated the respondent in service, 'therefore, in consequence to this judgment, the petitioners will not pass an adverse order undoing the order of reinstatement of respondent in service which will hold field for a period of two months unless a contrary order is earlier passed by the Court seized of the matter. In the light of foregoing reasons this petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed in the above terms with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./18/Glt.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.