2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ ANWAR, J.

Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the instant writ petition and writ petitions, listed below, since in all these petitions, similar question of law and facts are involved.

1. Writ Petition No.3798-P/2024 titled "Imtiaz Ahmed v. President and CEO, The Bank of Punjab, B Block, E-II, Main Boulevard Gulberg-III, Lahore and others"

2. Writ Petition No.5171-P/2024 titled "Sabir Ali v. President and CEO, The Bank of Punjab, B Block, F-IT, Main Boulevard Gulberg-III, Lahore and others"

3. Writ Petition No.4467-P/2025 titled "Shah Saud v. The Bank of Punjab through President and CEO, B Block, F-IT, Main Boulevard Gulberg-III, Lahore and others"

4. Writ Petition No.4468-P/2024 titled "Beni Yamin v. The Bank of Punjab through President and CEO, B Block, E-H, Main Boulevard Gulberg-III, Lahore and others"

2. Comments were called from the respondents who furnished the same, wherein, they opposed the issuance of desired writ asked for by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel, representing the respondent-Bank, raised a preliminary objection relating to maintainability of this and the connected writ petitions on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction and the relation of the petitioners with the respondent-Bank is to be governed by the principles of master and servant. He referred to different judgments passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and argued that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, which has given contra view, has since been suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.1776 of 2018 and leave has been granted on 17.01.2020.

4. Learned counsel, representing the petitioners, in response, argued that Bank of Punjab is a creation of Statute and while placing reliance on cases titled "Pakistan Defense Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707), Adam Khan v. Bank of Punjab through Chairman and others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 85), Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 377)" and an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Constitutional Petition No.794 of 2024, decided on 28.04.2025, argued that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter. On merit, he argued that while appraising the performance of the petitioners, the relevant conditions during the appraisal period were not taken into account. He further contended that petitioners were not provided right of hearing.

5. As against this, learned counsel, representing the respondent-Bank, argued that as per the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) of the respondent-Bank, petitioners failed to achieve the assigned targets for two consecutive years and for the year 2023, they were rated as "Needs Improvement" and as such, they were terminated simpliciter in accordance with the terms of their appointment letters. He further argued that petitioners have already received their terminal dues and they are no more aggrieved persons.

6. Arguments heard and record perused.

7. The main focus of the arguments of learned counsel, representing the respondent-Bank, was regarding maintainability of this and the connected writ petitions. In order to address the arguments regarding jurisdiction of this Court, though, this Court has, in the case tilted "Adam Khan v. Bank of Punjab through Chairman and others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 85)" maintained the writ petition against the Bank of Punjab and held its rules as statutory in nature, however, in the instant matter, we will see as to whether, certain judgments of the apex Court that directly relates to the root of the case were considered or otherwise. To examine the statutory status of the rules of the respondent-Bank, we may refer to the relevant Statute under which the respondent-Bank is established. The Bank of Punjab was established under the Bank of Punjab Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Section 3 of "the Act" provides for establishment and incorporation of the Bank while Section 25 of "the Act" empowers its Board of Directors to frame bye-laws with the prior approval of the Provincial Government. It was, however, amended when the Bank of Punjab (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (LVII of 2002) was promulgated and the condition of approval from the Government was dispensed with by deleting the words "with the previous approval of the Government". The case of the petitioners pertaining to appraisal of their performance was dealt with under the Standard Operating Procedures namely Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which was admittedly approved quite recently by the President/Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-Bank. The purpose of the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is "a process of identifying and engaging low or below-average performers in the team by providing an opportunity to improve their output, sustain performance and strive them to be better team members. PIP' s purpose is also to highlight persistent low performers, by assessing if the employee's role is in line with their skill set, if employees are not capable of raising their performance then either their role may be changed and/or ask them to find a more befitting opportunity for themselves. Thereafter., better replacements for these employees may also be sought for improving their performance. A performance improvement plan provides the employee with clear objectives to meet and improve performance to avoid dismissal, demotion, transfer etc". In the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), in case, an employee failed to achieve the targets set by the Bank, his/her name can be recommended for separation from employment and such employee has been given a right to apply for review before the Reviewing Authority. Admittedly, these were internal instructions of the respondent-Bank and have got no statutory status that can be enforced through the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Muhammad Zaman and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 571)", while considering an identical matter wherein too exactly same amendment was brought in the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, has held as under:- "

6. Like many other statutory bodies, SBP has also been given the power to frame regulations. In this regard section 54 of the Act is relevant which reads as follows:- "

54. Powers of the Central Board to make regulations. (1) The Central Board may make regulations consistent with this Act to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or convenient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act: (2) Provided that the terms and conditions of service of Governor and Deputy Governor shall be determined by the Federal Government. (3) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- : (j) recruitment of officers and servants of the Bank including the terms and conditions of their service, constitution of superannuation, beneficial and other funds, with or without bank's contribution, for the officers and servants of the Bank; their welfare; providing amenities, medical facilities, grant of loans and advances, their betterment and uplift; : According to section 54(1) of the Act, the Board is empowered to make regulations consistent with the Act to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or convenient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that previously SBP could only make regulations with the approval of the Federal Government, however by virtue of Act II of 1994, the words "subject to the approval of the Federal Government" were omitted. We are of the view that this omission is significant, conferring greater autonomy on the Board as the Federal Government was removed from the regulation-making process, and full authority came to vest in the Board to make such regulations. Indeed this was the view of a two-member bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Chief Manager, State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Shafi (2010 SCMR 1994) wherein, while considering whether the State Bank of Pakistan Staff Regulations, 1999 were statutory or non-statutory, it was held as follows:- "

7. The words "subject to the approval of the Federal Government" were omitted vide Act II of 1994. The regulations were framed under section 56 in the year, 1999 as is evident from the source on the basis of which the said regulations were framed which is to the following effect:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 54 of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 (XXXIII of 1956) the Central Board of Directors, hereby makes the following Regulations, to define the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank."

8. The omission of the aforesaid words subject to the approval from section 54 is meaningful. Rules framed by the Central Board of Directors which does not require approval of the Government, therefore aforesaid regulations may be termed as internal instructions or domestic rules/regulations having no status of statutory rules/regulations as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements" We are of the opinion that the above view applies to and is correct vis-a-vis the Regulations in the instant matter as well. Furthermore, as matters stand (since the omission by Act II of 1994), and as mentioned above, the regulation-making power lies solely in the hands of the Board with no intervention or approval of the Federal Government, and this reflects the intention of the Legislature. In this context, as highlighted above, even the structure of the Board as provided for in the Act renders it autonomous, with the Members, save for the Secretary, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, being private individuals, independent from the Federal Government. In fact, where the legislature wanted the intervention of the Federal Government, it has specifically provided for the same, and in this regard the proviso to section 54(1) of the Act is relevant which states that "the terms and conditions of service of Governor and Deputy Governor shall be determined by the Federal Government", clearly suggesting that the Legislature's intention was to exclusively clothe SBP with the power to frame regulations to carry out the objects and purpose of the Act. Furthermore, section 46B(2) of the Act [inserted by the State Bank of Pakistan (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act No.XIII of 1997)1, provides that "the Bank, the members of the Board or the staff of the Bank, shall not take instructions from any other person or entity, including the government or quasi-government entities. The autonomy of the Bank shall be respected at all times and no person or entity shall seek to influence the members of the Board and Monetary Policy Committee or the staff of the Bank in the performances of their functions or interfere in the activities of the Bank." It may be added that to give maximum autonomy to SBP, section 52(1) of the Act which empowered the Federal Government to supersede the Board and entrust the general superintendence and direction of the affairs of SBP to such agency as it (Federal Government) may determine was omitted by the State Bank of Pakistan (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Act No.IX of 2012 dated 13.3.2012). All the above aspects point towards the growing autonomy of SBP".

9. Earlier too, an identical matter was brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Muhammad Ishag Waheed Butt v. Chairman, Bank of Punjab and others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 963)" and the apex Court has held the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Punjab as non-statutory in nature to be enforced in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Similarly, a Single Bench of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the case titled "Amir Shehzad Chaudhry v. Chairman, Bank of Punjab and others (2015 PLC (C.S.) 423)", while discussing the status of the service rules of the Bank of Punjab, has held as under:- "

S. 25

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199

Constitutional petition

Bank employee

Non-statutory service Rules

Master and servant, principle of

Applicability-- Petition ers were employees of Bank of Punjab who assailed orders terminating them from service

Plea raised by Bank was that Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked as service Rules of Bank were non-statutory-- Validity

Petitioners were employees of Bank of Punjab who accepted employment on the basis of service contracts and had agreed to be governed by service regulations/ Human Resource Manual of the Bank

Human Resource Manual did not consist of statutory Rules nor it met settled criteria on the subject, to be termed as statutory Rules

Human Resource Manual was an internal document meant to govern terms and conditions of employees of the bank

Relationship between petitioners and the bank was governed by principle of "Master and Servant"

Any grievance of petitioners arising out of alleged violation of their service contract/ Human Resource Manual was not amenable to interference by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioners could approach a Court of plenary jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance

Petition was dismissed in circumstances".

10. Reference can also be made to the case titled "Arshad Ahmad Khan v. The Chairman, Bank of Punjab, Lahore and others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1355)", wherein, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court has held as under:- "(a) Bank of Punjab Act (XII of 1989)

S.25

Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199

Termination of service of Bank employee

Constitutional petition

Maintainability

Services of petitioners having been terminated by Bank, they had filed Constitutional petitions against such termination

Board of Directors of the Bank framed service Bye-laws under powers conferred on the Board under S.25 of Batik of Punjab Act, 1989, but Bye-laws did not receive formal approval of the Government which was necessary

Service Bye-laws could not be considered statutory rules

Unless a particular service or employment was governed by statutory rules, no Constitutional petition could be maintained to re-instate a servant who allegedly was wrongfully dismissed or removed from service-- Constitutional petition thus was not maintainable. (b) Bank of Punjab Act (XII of 1989)

S.25

Service Bye-laws

Status

Board of Directors of Batik under powers conferred under 5.25 of Bank of Punjab Act, 1989 framed Bye-laws regarding recruitment and terms and conditions of employment of officers of the Bank, but the Bye-laws did not receive formal approval of Government which was necessary for making the Bye-laws as statutory rules

Bye-laws would not have force of statutory rules or regulations in absence of approval of Government which was necessary to give said bye-laws status of statutory rules".

11. Even, quite recently, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, while considering the status of the service rules of the Bank of Punjab, set-aside the judgment of a Single Bench in Intra Court Appeal No.102 of 2023 titled "Bank of Punjab and others v. Burhan ud Din (decided on 24.10.2023") and held as under:- "Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a judgment by a three member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 377), which has taken a different view from the judgments we have referred above. Suffice to say that case of Muhammad Zaman and others is subsequent in time and takes a different view from that taken in Shafique Ahmed Khan and, therefore, being later in time will have greater binding force to be followed as a precedent. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan made in Civ. Pet. No.2011-L of 2016. Suffice to say that that decision does not take into account the case of Muhammad Zaman and others. Further it does not lay a binding precedent since there is no discussion on legal issues involved. The order passed in C.P. No. 2011-L of 2016 merely dismissed the petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner and reaffirmed the order passed by the High Court. We have also gone through the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court but at that time when the order was passed on 28.04.2016 in I.C.A No. 263 of 2014, the judgment in Muhammad Zaman and others was not before the Division Bench and hence it cannot be stated that the Division Bench was properly assisted in the matter. Moreover, the reliance of the Division Bench in I.C.A No. 263 of 2014 on the case law mentioned in paragraph 5 was on entirely different issues and did not decide the issue of law which is before this Court in the instant appeal".

12. We, with all respect to the earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, cannot subscribe to it as the relevant judgments of the apex Court in respect of Bank of Punjab were not brought to the notice of this Court, more particularly, judgments of the apex Court titled "Chief Manager, State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Shall (2010 SCMR 1994) and Muhammad Zaman and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 571)".

13. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), formulated by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank, has got no statutory status and termination of service of the employees of the Bank of Punjab for not achieving the required targets cannot be enforced through the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In view thereof, this and the connected writ petitions are held as not maintainable. The same accordingly dismissed. UN/196/P ????