Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SALEEM DAD VS Respondent: CHIEF ENGINEER/PROJECT DIRECTOR (POWER), SMALL HYDEL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, PESHAWAR
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 734
[Peshawar High Court]
Before Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ
SALEEM DAD
versus
CHIEF ENGINEER/PROJECT DIRECTOR (POWER), SMALL HYDEL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, PESHAWAR and others
Writ Petition No. 1203 of 1997, decided on 30th October, 1997.
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 10---Removal from service---Civil servant working as driver was removed from service after serving with show-cause notice on ground that he failed to comply with order of his transfer from one place of working to another and absented himself from duty without any explanation for his absence---Civil servant could be legally transferred to work at other place of working even without his consent and he was bound to comply with order of his transfer---Civil servant who failed to comply with transfer order and purposely did not report for his duty at his new place of working, was rightly removed from service.
(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212(2)-- Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Re-instatement in service being a matter relating to terms and conditions of service for which proper forum had been provided, jurisdiction of High Court had specifically been barred under Art.212(2) of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution filed by petitioner/civil servant for redress of his grievance was not maintainable.
Adam Khan for Petitioner.
ORDER
JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.--Vide Office Order No. 3408-10/Shydo/CE and PD/6-E(i), dated 7-9-1987 the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the office of Chief Engineer/Project Director (Power), Small Hydel Development Organisation, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, on temporary basis. On 13-5-1996, the Director, Finance/respondent No. 2, by his Order No. 2625-31/SHYDO/MD/30-E, dated 13-5-1996 removed him from service with immediate effect.
2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has approached this Court by filing this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on the grounds that the impugned order being without jurisdiction/illegal is liable to be set aside.
3. Mr. Adam Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard. Record of the case perused.
4. It may be noted that the petitioner was transferred from the office of Managing Director, Shydo, Peshawar to Civil Construction Division, Shydo, Chitral, vide Office Order No. 824-30/Shydo/MD, Drivers, dated 22-2-1995. He did not comply with the said order and failed to join his duty within time. Later, he absented himself from duty with effect from 31-5-1995 till date. He was, therefore, suspended from service and directed to explain as to why he received absent from his duties. He failed to comply with the said directions. Finally the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice. His reply to the show-cause notice was found to be unsatisfactory and he was removed from service with immediate effect.
5. It maybe stated at the outset that in facts and circumstances of the case, it, cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the impugned order is either illegal or perverse/arbitrary. Provisions of section 10 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 are quite clear. It has been provided therein that every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere within or outside the country on any post under the Federal or Provincial Government. The petitioner was bound/required under the law to work at Civil Construction Division, Shydo, Chitral. He could be legally transferred to work there even without his consent and he was bound to comply with the said order. He, however, failed to do so and purposely failed to report for his duty.
6. Besides, the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis. His services could be terminated at 15 days notice or on payment of 15 days salary in lieu of the notice. In the circumstances we fail to understand as to how the petitioner could invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the validity of the impugned order passed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter.
7. Since the grievance of the petitioner for his re-instatement in service is a matter which relates to the terms and conditions of his service and a proper forum has been provided for the same and the jurisdiction of this Court has been specifically barred under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, therefore, on this score too, this writ petition is not maintainable.
8. The writ petition being without any substance is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./41/P Petition dismissed.