ZAFAR MAHMOOD MALIK vs WATER MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST and 5 others

ORDER

' The petitioner is an employee of the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department and was posted at Water Management Project, a wing of the above department, and was performing his duties in the office of respondent No,1, wherefrom he was relieved and he reported to the office of respondent No,2 on 10-1-2004. On 16-2-2004, the respondent No,2 wrote a letter to the District Accounts Officer Toba Tek Singh, which reads as follows:-- "It is informed that Water Management Specialist, Field Team, Toba Tek Singh made a series of correspondence with Mr. Zafar Mahmood Malik, Water Management Officer, Field Team, Toba Tek Singh to take interest in Govt. Duties i.e, watercourse Improvement and On-Farm Field Drainage scheme and also tried to make him punctual but all in vain.

' During the visits of Mr. Muhammad Saleem Arshad (Director), member inspection team, Secretary Agriculture, Punjab, Lahore the field progress of the officer regarding watercourse improvement and field drain was found unsatisfactory. Water Management Specialist, Toba Tek Singh, relieved the officer vide letter No,772/WMS/TTS: dated 10-1-2004 and advised to report this office for further necessary action.

' To control the situation it is requested to please withhold the pay of officer as he has been relieved by the Water Management Specialist, Toba Tek Singh, to avoid financial complication till decision from departmental authorities."

2. Since the above letter, the petitioner is running from pillar to post to seek the release of his salary, but without any success; no departmental inquiry of any sort regarding his alleged inefficiency or misconduct has been initiated at any level. When questioned in the Court, as to under what authority of law, he has the power to direct for withholding the salary of the petitioner, the respondent No,2 has not been able to answer, but repeatedly submitted that because the petitioner failed to achieve the target, therefore, to stop his salary is a justified action.

3. Heard. If the petitioner has been inefficient in his working obviously, there are rules to proceed against him, but I have not come across any law according to which, respondent No,2, who otherwise is not the competent authority, has any power at all to direct for the stoppage of the petitioner's salary. This is a classical case of the abuse and misuse of the authority, otherwise not vested with the said respondent and the action can thus be validly termed as the arrogant andsupercilious exercise of an authority, which is lacking. In the above manner, the respondent No,2 has illegally and unlawfully prevented the petitioner to draw his subsistence allowance the bread and butter of his family, the main source of their livelihood, for the last eight months. And during the days of financial crunch, it is inconceivable, as to how a salaried employee would have his two ends meet and sustain his family needs. The stoppage of the petitioner's salary, to my mind, by the respondent No,2, is also in breach of the fundamental right to life of the petitioner, as enshrined by the Constitution of Pakistan, and on this account as well, the action is void ab initio.

Anyhow, before parting, as I am of the view that respondent No,2 has acted capriciously and in a most fanciful manner, therefore, he should pay the special costs as a compensation to the petitioner, Resultantly, I impose the costs of Rs,25,000 upon the respondent No,2, which shall be paid by him from his personal pocket and recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

' In the light of above, this petition is accepted and the order dated 16-2-2004 is set aside, with the result that the petitioner is entitled to immediately receive his salary, from the day it had been stopped. The salary must be paid to him before the coming "Eid" and the Secretary Irrigation is directed to ensure about the release of the petitioner's salary in time.