RASHID AHMAD Versus UNITED BANK LTD

ORDER

1. 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?

2. 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.

3. 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:

4. "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.

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. Leave refused.

8. M.I. /R‑42/S Petition dismissed.