2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
MUHAMMAD AIJAZ AKHTAR Versus DIRECTOR BANK CONTROLLER STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Irfan Saadat Khan and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AIJAZ AKHTAR Versus DIRECTOR BANK CONTROLLER STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Irfan Saadat Khan and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (MUHAMMAD AIJAZ AKHTAR Versus DIRECTOR BANK CONTROLLER STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition against private Bank
Petitioner-employee of a private Bank seeking direction to the Bank about his service matter
Respondent was a private Bank having no statutory rules of service
High Court could not entertain the grievance of petitioner against a private Bank while exercising constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, however, employee could avail appropriate remedy as provided to him under the law. [paras. 6 & 8 of the judgment] Muhammad Ashraf and others v. United Bank Limited and others 2015 SCMR 911 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.
The Petitioner has sought following relief:-- A. To direct the M/s. UBL Bank Limited, to reinstate the Petitioner after conducting the fair enquiry. B. To direct the M/s. UBL Bank Limited, for the punishment of the real culprits namely Operation Manager Muhammad Ali and Branch Manager Hassan Moosa and present Branch Manager Muhammad Younus. C. To direct Respondents abovenamed for giving Gratuity and compensation which is given at the time of the retirement if they do not want to. D. Cost of this petition. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is an ex-employee of United Bank Limited. His services were terminated on 07.05.2005, on the accusation of misappropriation of cash by pocketing Rs.89,365/-from the collection of various utility bills etc., while as teller at Bhorapir Branch, Karachi. Petitioner was given charge sheet and domestic enquiry was also conducted and he was found guilty. The Petitioner, present in person, states that he was not at fault and some conspiracy was being hatched against him at that time and his services were terminated without his fault. He has further submitted that the punishment awarded to him was very harsh, which was based on the false accusation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.89,350/-. He prays for his reinstatement in service of M/s. United Bank Limited. Upon query by this Court as to how the instant Petition is maintainable against the private Bank, the Petitioner reiterated his arguments and argued that this is a hardship case and this Court can hear and decide the matter on merits. We have gone through the case file and heard the Petitioner in person. Admittedly, the Petitioner was an ex-employee of M/s. United Bank Limited and was terminated on 07.05.2005, on certain allegations. It is an admitted fact that M/s. United Bank Limited is a private Bank having no statutory Rules of Service, therefore, the forum chosen by the Petitioner by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law. On the above proposition of law, the principle has already been settled in the case of Muhammad Ashraf and others v. United Bank Limited and others (2015 SCMR 911). We are cognizant of the fact that this Court cannot entertain the grievance of the Petitioner against a private Bank under Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, the instant Petition stands dismissed in limine along with listed applications. However, the Petitioner may avail appropriate remedy as provided to him under the law. ZC/M-29/Sindh Petition dismissed.