1989SCMR832 (PLP)

(i) Appoint and engage such officers, servants and persons as it may insider necessary for the efficient conduct of the business of the Bank; (ii) suspend, remove, dismiss and discharge any such officer, servant or person; (iii) to frame, with the previous approval of the Central Government, rules to which the Officers and staff of the Bank shall be subject; (iv) to make provisions, with the previous approval of the Central Government, to grant salaries, pensions and other emoluments to officers and staff, and to grant gratuities or other financial assistance, either temporary or permanent, to widows, children or other dependents of deceased officers or staff; and (v) to constitute, with the previous approval of the Central Government, Provident, Pension and Guarantee Funds for Officers and Staff and to frame rules for the administration of such funds and the payments to be made there from. (b) No Managing Director, Deputy Managing Director, Officer or employee of the Bank shall, without the previous sanction of the Central Board, engage in any other banking or commercial business either on his own account or on behalf of any other person or persons or shall act as agent for the sale or purchase of Government or other securities. (c) Every auditor, officer, servant or person employed or engaged by the Bank shall before entering upon his duties sign a declaration required by Bye‑law 13(a). (d) The Central Board may authorise the Managing Director, Deputy Managing Director, and any other officer or employee of the Bank to exercise powers specified by the Central Board. (e) Notwithstanding anything contained in Bye‑law 18(d), the Central Board may with the previous approval of the Central Government authorise the Managing Director and other officers of the Bank to incur such expenditure and in such manner as may be specified by the Central Board from time to time." Subsequently Service Rules were framed by the Central Board in purported exercise of Bye‑law 18(a)(iii) with the previous approval of the Central Government which are called the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1953. Rule 42 of the Staff Service Rules deals with the procedure for disciplinary action against the employees of the Bank which is in the following terms:‑‑ "42 (i) Before it is decided to dismiss an employee or to degrade him to a lower stage in his grade or to stop his future annual increments or to penalise him in any other way for an offence of which he has been reported guilty, he shall be called upon to render a written explanation of the charges against him and show cause by such date as may be specified in this behalf as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The employee's statement shall be submitted to the authority competent to award the punishment. (ii) The authority competent to award the proposed punishment shall either enquire into case itself or obtain an independent report on the case in writing from an Officer specially deputed to investigate the case. This report, together with the employee's statement shall be laid before the authority competent to award punishment. (iii) The authority competent to award punishment shall then consider the matter and award such punishment, if any, as it deems proper in the circumstances. The decision of such authority shall be conveyed in writing to the employee concerned. (iv) The procedure prescribed by the foregoing subsections shall not apply;‑‑ (a) where the employee concerned has absconded or where, in the opinion of the competent authority, it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him; (b) where an employee is caught in the course of the commission of a wrongful act or the wrongful act is so fresh and the circumstances attending it so manifest that compliance with subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) would be purposeless formality it will be just and proper for the authority competent to award punishment to take an explanation of the employee and award punishment forthwith."

4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the Staff Service Rules not having been framed by virtue of the delegated rule making power vesting in the Central Board under section 32 of the Ordinance, these rules do not have effect as statutory rules but are only instructions for the guidance of the Officers of the Bank in regard to the internal management of the Bank administration. There is no doubt that as previously observed, the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules purport to be rules made by the Central Board under Bye‑law 18 of the National Bank of Pakistan Bye‑laws. However, in our view this fact makes no material difference as to the effect of these rules. The vires or the legal effect of the rules cannot be judged by the mere form in which the rules are framed or the title by which they are called. In substance and in legal effect the said Service Rules for all intents and purposes are Bye‑laws framed under section 32 of the Ordinance. The legal requirements for giving effect to the subordinate legislation contemplated under section 32 have been complied with in framing the Service Rules, inasmuch as, the rules have been framed by the 'Central Board and it is not denied that the prior approval of the Central Government was accorded.

5. This Court in The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v, Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi P L D 1984 S C 170, referring to earlier pronouncement of the Court restated the law and observed that "the case of an employee who was governed by Statutory Rules stood on a different pedestal from the case of an employee whose conditions of service were regulated merely by the instructions issued by the employing organisation for its own internal use." It was reiterated that it is well‑settled that where statutory rules govern the service conditions of an employee, then the pleasure of the master stands surrendered to the extent that the matter is covered by the relevant rules. The Nab final conclusion of the Court was stated as under:‑‑ "It is, therefore, evident that where the conditions of service of an employee of a statutory body are governed by statutory rules, any action prejudicial taken against him in derogation or in violation of the said rules can be set aside by a writ petition. However, where his terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules but only by regulations, instructions or directions, which the institution or body, in which he is employed, has issued for its internal use, any violation thereof will not, normally, be enforced through a writ petition. Similar view was taken in another recent decision of this Court, reported as Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others P L D 1984 S C

194. Learned counsel has no cavil with the principles postulated in this decision and conceded that in that view of the matter the suit for relief in respect I of wrongful dismissal of such employee would be competent in a Civil Court. The alternate submission on behalf of the appellant was that there was no violation of rule 42 of the Staff Service Rules and the domestic inquiry was, there fore, not liable to be struck down. But since leave was not granted on this question we are not inclined to go into this aspect of the matter. Having found that the suit was competent and maintainable in law, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. AA./N‑134/S Appeal dismissed.