EHSAN ELAHI CHEEMA vs SECRETARY HEALTH and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his transfer from his position as a Pharmacist. The petitioner, a civil servant, contended that his transfer was motivated by mala fides, alleging victimization due to his efforts to expose departmental irregularities, and argued that the Service Tribunal failed to consider supporting documents. The Supreme Court addressed whether a transfer order of a civil servant constitutes a justiciable grievance when mala fides are alleged but unsubstantiated. The Court held that posting and transfer are the prerogative of the employer, and no vested right exists for a civil servant to remain at a particular station unless specific rules dictate otherwise. Finding that the petitioner had exceeded the normal three-year tenure and that his allegations of irregularities were proven false, the Court concluded the transfer was made for valid administrative reasons. The Court affirmed that mere transfer does not involve a question of law of public importance, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a specific station?
- Is a transfer order of a civil servant subject to judicial interference if the allegations of mala fides are found to be false?
- Does a transfer order of a civil servant generally involve a question of law of public importance?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 17-9- 1998 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore through which the appeal filed by the petitioner against his transfer order dated 19-9-1997 has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner who was working as Pharmacist was transferred by the Secretary, Health, Government of the Punjab, to District Headquarter Hospital, Jhelum for administrative reasons. He challenged the said order through appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which has been dismissed through the impugned order, dated 17-9-1998, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer dated 19-9-1997 suffered from mala fides inasmuch as the petitioner was victimized on account of his efforts through different applications to unearth the irregularities in the department. Comments were called for from the Secretary Health by the Service Tribunal which were submitted and these allegations were denied. Learned Advocate-General who has appeared today in response to call by the Court as to whether the petitioner being an invalid person could be accommodated against any one of the two posts available in the same Hospital, submitted that the petitioner has already over-stayed in the present Hospital for about eight years whereas the normal tenure of posting at one station according to the rules is three years. As to his allegations about irregularities, inquiries and investigations were thoroughly made and they were found to be false. He says that he has instructions from the department that it is in the interest of the petitioner himself and also the administration that he should not be allowed to continue at the present place of posting.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that in order to demonstrate that the order of transfer of the petitioner suffered from mala fides, he had appended with the appeal before the Service Tribunal a number of documents which had not been considered as is evident from the absence of any reference to them in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the judgment reported as Saeed Ibne Ali Tirmizi v. Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority and another (1996 SCM R 297) in which an order of the Service Tribunal passed in appeal filed by a civil servant challenging the order of his dismissal from service by the departmental authority on the ground of mala fides was set aside on the ground that the Service Tribunal did not take into consideration the material place on the record of the appeal in order to prove and establish mala fides.
5. We are afraid if the principle laid down in the said judgment is applicable in this case. Firstly, it is a case of mere transfer of a civil servant. Posting and transfer is the prerogative of the employer, therefore, no vested right is created in favour of a civil servant to claim that he should be posted at one station unless any rule creates any right in him to remain posted at one station or debars the administration from transferring him or the same suffers from mala fides. In this case, the allegations made by the petitioner in respect of the alleged irregularities were found to be false, therefore, it could not be urged that the order of transfer made for administrative reasons could be said to have suffered from mala fides particularly when the petitioner had already remained posted for more than eight years much above the normal tenure of posting of three years at a station under the rules. Besides, no question of law of public importance is involved in this case whereas it is a case of individuals grievance.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Dr. Maham Munir Awan vs Secretary, Specialized Health Care & Medical 2020 PLJ Lahore 209