ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court Friday issued notices to the federal government and other respondents in a petition of former president of National Bank of Pakistan Saeed Ahmed who had challenged his removal from his post.

A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah conducted hearing of the petition of Saeed Ahmad and issued notices to the respondents seeking their response in this matter.

After issuing the notices, the IHC bench deferred hearing till September 10 for further proceedings in this connection.

The petitioner moved the court through his counsel Faiz Rasool Jalbani and cited Prime Minister through Principal Secretary, federal government through secretary Finance division, secretary cabinet division, secretary establishment division, Governor State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) and secretary board of directors of NBP as respondents.

Saeed stated in the petition that the appointment of the petitioner is contractual in essence and he has not breached any term/condition fixed by the government in view of Section 11 (3) (a) of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act 1974.

“Neither the petitioner has done nor has been alleged to have done the acts/omissions which may render him liable to removal in view of Section 11 (3) (a) (b) (c) and section 11 (12) of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974,” said the petitioner.

He added that whole of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act 1974 nowhere confers the power upon respondent No 2 (Secretary Finance) to place the petitioner under suspension or restrain him from performing his functions.

He contended that the petitioner was condemned unheard and he had never been summoned by the secretary finance for explaining his position if asked. “No show cause has ever been issued. No charge has been framed by department against the petitioner. No department inquiry/proceedings is/was pending against the petitioner. The accumulative effect of the aforesaid facts indicates un-rebuttable presumption that the respondent No 2 has subjected the petitioner to political victimization,” maintained the former president of NBP.

He argued that notification of his suspension is arbitrary, fanciful, whimsical, capricious and repugnant to the conscience. Therefore, he prayed to the court that the said notification dated August 28 may be set aside being illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary and void ab initio.

He also requested the court that the petitioner may be allowed to immediately resume his office and to perform in the capacity of President/CEO of the NBP till January 1, 2019.