2007L2007 (PLP)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

The petitioner is an employee of the respondent No.1. While he was so serving as an Area Manager (Lodhran), he was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure "A") along with statements of allegations. He filed reply which was found unsatisfactory and an inquiry was instituted and he was found guilty vide report prepared by the said Inquiry Officer. He was provided with a copy of the inquiry report and given personal hearing. He was accordIng1y removed from service vide order, dated 31-5-2000. He filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed and then he filed a service appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal which according to the petitioner has abated by virtue of the dictum of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the respondent-Corporation was established under a Statute, the Rules are statutory and the breach thereof can be enforced by filing this writ petition. He relies on the cases of Arshad Jamal v. N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others 2004 SCMR 468 and Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation through Director-General, Islamabad and another v. Muhammad Akram Alizai, Deputy Controller, PBC, Islamabad PLD 2002 SC 1079.

3. I have examined this writ petition and the documents accompanying it in the light of the said submissions of the learned counsel. Now the proceedings were initiated and concluded and the petitioner was dismissed under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973. These are the Regulations which governed the relationship between the petitioner and the said employer. The consensus of judicial authority expressed in several judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is that where the power to frame Regulations is given to the Corporation established under a Statute then such Regulations are not to be treated as a statutory Rules, the breach whereof can be enforced by filing a suit or writ petition. Now the respondent No.1 is a creature of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 (P.O. No.10 of 1972). Article 49 of the said Order empowers the respondent No.1 to make Regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government. These include the terms and conditions of service of the employees or agents. Thus, the Government having not vested itself with the said power, the Regulations so framed by the said Corporation would not be statutory Rules.

4. Now in the said case of Arshad Jamal, it was found as a fact that the employee of a statutory Corporation had been removed from service without issuing a show-cause notice and giving him an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, it is in the writ petition itself that a charge-sheet with statement of allegations was served. The reply was given, and inquiry was conducted and thereafter another opportunity was given to explain. The said judgment is hardly attracted. So far as the case of Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation through Director-General, Islamabad and another is concerned, upon an appreciation of the circumstances of the case, it was again held as a fact that the said Housing Foundation is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and 'as such it being official agency of the Federal Government cannot be treated like a private Company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The facts and circumstances of this case are clearly distinguishable.

5. The writ petition is, therefore, found to be incompetent. However, if so advised, the petitioner may file a suit for damages in case he believes that the proceedings were taken against him in violation of the said Regulations. With these observations, the writ petition id dismissed in limine. M.H./M-618/L Petition dismissed.