1988 PLP 926 (SCMR)
Sh. RASHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK Ltd. and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 926 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. RASHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK Ltd. and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 926 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 926 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 926 (SCMR) (Sh. RASHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus UNITED BANK Ltd. and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dost Muhammad Awan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23rd June, 1987 of the Peshawar High Court Circuit Bench, Abbottabad in Writ Petition No.54 of 1980). Banks (Nationalization) Act (XIX of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.11(4)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Bank employee‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Rules framed by Executive Board of Bank‑‑Status of‑‑Dismissal from Bank's service‑ Challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑Plea that Rules framed by Executive Board of Bank in the light of recommendations of Pay Commission for Banks were to be treated as having status of Statutory Rules and a writ petition was competent against violation of a Statutory rule, not sustained‑‑No rule framed by Executive Board was violated before order of petitioner's dismissal was passed nor said Rules had attained status of statutory rules‑‑Leave to appeal refused. The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shohaib Qureshi P L D 1984 S C 170 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question in this case is whether the petitioner who was serving as Manager of the United Bank Limited, Contractor's Colony Branch, Tarbela but was dismissed from service on 23‑11‑1978 on the ground of committing certain irregularities in the issuance of two guarantees, could challenge the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition? According to the petitioner, he could challenge the impugned order by a writ petition because the rules framed by the Executive Board of the Bank in the light of the recommendations of the Pay Commission for Banks were to be treated as having the status of Statutory Rules under section 11(4) of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 and a writ petition was competent for violation of a statutory rule, as per this Court's judgment in The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shohaib Qureshi P L D 1984 S C
170. Mr. Dost Muhammad Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner,' was, however, unable to even point out any rule framed by the Executive Board which was violated, before the order of the petitioner's dismissal was passed. Even otherwise, we agree with the finding of the High Court that the rules framed by the Executive Board of the Bank did not attain the status of the Statutory Rules on account of the terms of the letter of the Government of Pakistan (Finance Division) dated 16th October, 1978, which merely stated: "As you are aware, the Banks and Financial Institutions have been following different Discipline Rules. The Pay Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions (1977) has, however, recommended that Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975, as incorporated in Para.255 of their report should be made applicable to the Executive and Officers of the Banks and Financial Institutions. I am, therefore, to request that the existing rules of Banks and Financial Institutions may please be reviewed and amended, where necessary, so as to bring these in conformity with those recommended by the Pay Commission." As pointed out already, the action against the petitioner in the instant case was taken on 23‑11‑1978 and there is nothing on record to show that any steps to comply with the recommendations contained in the letter of the Finance Division (Government of Pakistan) dated 16‑10‑1978 had, in fact, been taken by the Bank, before the order of the petitioner's dismissal was passed. Leave refused. M.I. /R‑42/S Petition dismissed.