Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHAZANFAR ALI VS Respondent: ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED, ISLAMABADHonorable Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan KasiMalik Waheed Anjum,Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad
2011 P L C (C
2011 P L C (C.S.) 648
[Islamabad High Court]
Before Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi, J
GHAZANFAR ALI
Versus
ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED, ISLAMABAD through President and 4 others
Writ Petitions Nos.1928 and 1251 of 2009, heard on 24th January, 2011.
Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Civil service---Transfer front one place of working to another---Petitioner who was Assistant Vice President of the Bank and was serving in Head Office of Bank at place 'I' was transferred to place `K' which was a far-flung area of another Province---Petitioner remained posted at Head Office and got training in connection with the Head Office affairs and never served in the field---Validity---Due to law and order situation his sudden posting at place `K' by itself was not justified---No reasons were available for his immediate relieving from duties within one day by a single stroke---No doubt that posting and transfer was prerogative of the authority; none could ask for a posting of his choice, but transfers with mala fide intentions were amenable to constitutional jurisdiction and the court would never hesitate to strike down the orders which would cause harassment and inconvenience to the employees--Petitioner had succeeded to establish that his transfer orders had been issued to penalize him for raising voice against the torture of bank employee by guards of the President of the Bank---Transfer order was issued without considering the public interest---Constitutional jurisdiction, in circumstances could be invoked as the elements of mala fide and vengeance were also there---Impugned transfer order, was set aside and petitioner was deemed to remain on his previous place of posting---Petitioner was ordered to be paid all salaries and other benefits for that period.
2000 SCMR 1214 and 1996 SCMR 645 ref.
Malik Waheed Anjum for Petitioner.
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 2011.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI. J.--- This writ petition challenges the transfer order dated 21-2-2009, whereby the petitioner Assistant Vice-President of the Z.T.B.L, Head Office Islamabad, was transferred from Islamabad to Kharan Balochistan.
2. It is submitted that he joined the respondent bank on 8-1-1990 as Assistant Director and got promotions during his service, while presently, he is serving as Assistant Vice President. It is contended that from the very first day, he remained posted in the different departments of Head Office and was never posted in the field. During all his service he was never charge sheeted, or reprimanded. It is further stated that on 17-2-2009, the employees union staged a protest against brutal manhandling of one of the employees by the personal security guards of the President ZTBL, against whom slogans were raised by the mob, the petitioner however rushed to his office. It is alleged that under the guise of this protest, the respondents made him escape goat and transferred him to far-flung area of Balochistan namely Kharan without any justification in order to convey a message to the other employees of same consequences if they raise any hue and cry against illegal actions.
3. The petitioner initially requested for cancellation of transfer order and in the meanwhile due to stress and mental agony, he suffered from old ailment and became unable to travel to Kharan Balochistan. It is also alleged that the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 called him for a meeting and ask him to join hands with them against ex-zonal chief ZTBL and by accepting this offer, he would be posted at a position of his choice. The petitioner however, did not accept it. In this regard, short message services (SMS) were exchanged between them. It is next mentioned that his transfer order was never withdrawn which had been made with mala fide intention and instead a show cause notice dated 29-4-2009 was served upon him for non-joining the service.
4. The petitioner initially made a representation on 8-4-2009, which remained un-responded and having left with no alternate remedy, he invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court.
5. The writ was admitted on 13-7-2009 and status quo order was passed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the transfer order is violative of the policy as the petitioner remained posted at the head office throughout and got training with reference to job assigned to department in the head office. He had never opted for transfer in the field and his posting at Kharan Branch would not in the interest of bank as the Kharan Branch is running in loss and doing the recoveries only.
7. It is also argued that he belongs to Punjab and apprehends his life in a far-flung area of Balochistan, where target killing is a common phenomenon.
8. The petition was contested by the respondents by filing parawise comments, wherein the allegations were repudiated. It was stated that there are no mala fidies and the transfer was made in the public interest. It is stated that bank had refused the grant of leave as there was no genuine medical certificate, but the petitioner failed to join duty, therefore, a show cause notice was issued.
9. During the pendency of this petition, application for initiating of contempt of court proceedings was also filed, which was contested by the respondent by denying the allegations about violation of court order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon case-laws reported in 2000 SCMR 1214, 1996 SCMR 645 on the point of jurisdiction and mala fide actions.
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsels.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner remained posted at Head Office Islamabad and got trainings in connection with the head office affairs. He never served in the field. It is also admitted position that due to law and order situation, his sudden posting at Kharan by itself was not justifiable. There are no reasons for his immediate relieving of duties within one day by a single stroke.
13. The SMS list indicates that exchange of messages was made between them and the respondents were adamant to teach him a lesson. No doubt that posting and transfer is prerogative of the authority and none can ask for a posting of his choice but at the same time, transfers with mala fide intentions are amenable to writ jurisdiction and the courts never hesitate to strike down the orders which cause harassment and inconvenience to the employees.
14. In the instant case, the petitioner had succeeded to establish that his transfer orders have been issued to penalize him for raising voice against the torture of bank employee by the guards of President.
15. The bare perusal of transfer order shows that it was issued without considering the public interest. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not attracted in the present case as in the present case, the writ jurisdiction can be invoked and the elements of mala fide and vengeance are also there.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is accepted, transfer order dated 21-2-2009 is set-aside, and the petitioner is deemed to remain on his previous place of posting. He be paid all salaries and other ' benefits for this period. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. As far as the contempt Application No.71-W of 2010 is concerned, it is dismissed as apparently there is no violation of any order by the respondents.
H.B.T./G-5/Isl. Petition accepted.