ALLAH RAKHA vs THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 4
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a transfer order of a WAPDA employee. The petitioner, a Fitter promoted to Assistant Foreman, was initially posted to Nowshera but failed to join, leading to his attachment at a workshop in Lahore. Subsequently, another employee (respondent No. 5) was posted to the Nowshera position, and the petitioner was allowed to continue in Lahore. The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the transfer order of respondent No. 5 was passed mala fide to accommodate the petitioner rather than for service exigencies. The Supreme Court examined the petition and held that the Tribunal's finding of fact regarding mala fides was based on a proper consideration of the material on record. The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with such findings of fact absent evidence of misreading or disregard of material evidence. As no question of law of public importance was involved, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact arrived at by the Federal Service Tribunal in the absence of misreading or disregard of material evidence?
- Is a transfer order passed mala fide to accommodate a specific employee legally sustainable?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal require a question of law of public importance to be entertained?
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 20-5-1997, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Civil Appeal No, 55(L) of 1997.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Allah Rakha petitioner, while working as Fitter in Grade-1 in the Office of XEN T.R. (D) Workshop, Shalimar, Lahore, was promoted as Assistant Foreman and posted in the same capacity in the office of XEN T.R. (D), Nowshera against a vacant post vide order dated 17-6-1996. The promotion of the petitioner was provisional and on temporary basis until further orders. The petitioner failed to join the post within 15 days in accordance with the condition laid down in the promotion order, WAPDA, therefore, passed another order on 22-9-1996, whereby the petitioner was attached with XEN T.R. (D) Workshop, Shalimar, Lahore and his pay was to be charged against his original post of Assistant Foreman T.R. (D) Workshop, Nowhsera till further orders. Finally, by order dated 26-9-1996, Rehmat Khan respondent No, 5 herein was posted as Assistant Foreman T.R. (D) Workshop Nowhsera and the petitioner was allowed to continue in place of respondent No, 5 in the T.R. (D) Workshop, Shalimar, Lahore. Respondent No, 5 being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order approached the Tribunal, which after thorough scrutiny of the material on record, recorded a finding of fact that the order of transfer dated 26-9-1996 was passed mala fide, with a view to accommodate the petitioner out of way and not in the exigencies of service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material available on record. Suffice it to say that the controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact that the order of transfer dated 26-9-1996 was mala fide. Clearly, a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal upon proper consideration of relevant material on record cannot be interfered with by this Court, in the absence of anything on the record to show any misreading or disregard of any material evidence on record. Here learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any error in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The impugned order is unexceptionable.
' In the result, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.