Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MAQBOOL AHMAD, MANAGER, AUQAF, RAHIMYAR KHAN VS Respondent: AUQAF DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C. S.) 639
[Lahore High Court]
Before Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, J
Mahar MAQBOOL AHMAD, MANAGER, AUQAF, RAHIMYAR KHAN
versus
AUQAF DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE through its Chief Administrator, Auqaf and another
Writ Petition No. 3273tw of 1995BWP, decided on 6th February, 1996.
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Transfer of civil servant four times in nine months‑‑‑Justification‑‑ No reasonable cause was available to Authorities to order transfers of civil servant frequently whereas normal tenure at one post was three years‑‑‑Civil servant's such frequent transfers was a case of mala fides patent on record- Actions of Authorities in transferring civil servant frequently were subject to scrutiny by High Court to secure ends of justice and save civil servant from constant harassment resulting from such mala fide acts‑‑‑Frequent transfers of civil servant being mala fide, Authorities were directed not to transfer him before completion of his tenure.
Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner.
Muhammad Hussain, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
ORDER
It has been admitted by the learned A.A.‑G. after perusal of record that petitioner was transferred on 19‑4‑1995 from R.Y. Khan to Kot Mithan, D.G. Khan and from Kot Mithan to Pakpattan on 24‑4‑1995. The petitioner was again transferred on 23‑8‑1995 from Pakpattan to R.Y. Khan and from Rahimyar Khan he has again been transferred on 19‑12‑1995 to Uch Sharif.
2. There appears to be no reasonable cause available to the respondents to order transfers of the petitioner so frequently whereas the normal tenure at one post is three years. In this case the petitioner was transferred four times in a period of nine months and God knows where the malice of the respondents would take them further in perpetuating the same by ordering frequent transfers. It is a case where mala fide is patent on record and the actions of the respondents in transferring the petitioner frequently are subject to scrutiny by this Court to secure the ends of justice and save the petitioner from constant harassment and perpetuation to mala fides against him.
3. The petition in the circumstances is accepted. The impugned order dated 19‑12‑1995 transferring the petitioner from R.Y. Khan to Uch Sharif is declared to be the result of mala fides and is quashed.
4. The respondents are issued a warning to abstain from causing unnecessary harassment to a subordinate on the basis of some personal motive or at the insistence of some political personage.
5. The petitioner shall not be transferred henceforth unless he completes his normal period of tenure at R.Y. Khan or in public interest, which should not be made a basis for perpetuation of malice.
6. The petition is allowed. As the petitioner is an employee of the respondents and in case of awarding of costs may face further harassment, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
A.A/M-262/L Petition accepted.