1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nazir Ahmad Nasim respondent had joined service on 10‑2‑1966 as B.C.G. Technician at Sheikhupura under the Director, Health Services, Lahore Division. On 11‑1‑1969 he applied to the Provincial Smallpox Eradication Officer, West Pakistan, Lahore for the post of Assistant Superintendent, Vaccination and vide order, dated 1‑5‑1969, he was appointed as such. He took up his new assignment at Sheikhupura after having allegedly severed all his connections with his previous service as B.C.G. Technician under the Health Directorate, Lahore Region, Lahore. Later on 24‑6‑1970 he was transferred to Rahimyar Khan by the order of Provincial Smallpox Eradication Officer and, after an unsuccessful representation against the transfer order, he joined as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination, Rahimyar Khan in July, 1970. After a few months, on 10‑9‑1970 Director, Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore, vide his letter, dated 10‑9‑1970, addressed to the Provincial Smallpox Eradication Officer, Lahore, withdrew the respondent from the said service and after bringing him to Lahore, again posted him as B.C.G. Technician in the Maternity and Health Department, Institute of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, 6‑Birdwood Road, Lahore. In compliance of this order he relinquished the charge as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination, Rahimyar Khan on 19‑10‑1970 and joined his new posting but allegedly under a protest as he considered the order of his withdrawal dated 10‑9‑1970 as illegal, without lawful authority and mala fide. He eventually challenged it by a suit brought by him on 13‑3‑1972 in the Court of a Civil Judge at Lahore.

2. The petitioner resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that on account of his unsatisfactory performance in the Smallpox Eradication Organisation, Rahimyar Khan, he had rightly been taken back by the Director, Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore in his original department for which he was always chaffing to come in order to enjoy his posting at Lahore, for studying law.

3. On the above pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Is this suit not maintainable? OPD (2) Is the impugned order dated 10‑9‑1970 is illegal, mala fide, without lawful authority and not binding on the plaintiff? OPP (3) Relief.

4. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their counsel, the learned trial Judge, vide his judgment, dated 18‑10‑1976, decreed the suit after deciding issue No. 1 against the defendant and issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner went up in appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment, dated 9‑3‑1982. The defendant, therefore, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that basically the respondent was the employee of Director, Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore as he has joined service under him in the year 1966 as B.C.G. Technician and for sometime he did join as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination at Rahimyar Khan under the Provincial Smallpox Eradication Organisation but due to his unsatisfactory performance therein he was withdrawn from that Organisation back to his parent department by the order, dated 10‑9‑1970, and was posted in the Maternity Centre again as B.C.G. Technician, Lahore Region, Lahore. According to the learned counsel, the respondent continued to display his non cooperative attitude at Lahore and he was transferred to Pindigheb as B.C.G. Technician but he did not obey this order and instead brought this suit, challenging the order of his return to his original department dated 10‑9‑1970 and after sometime he absented himself from duty and no one knew where he has been ever since 1972. He submits that the learned Additional District Judge had written a short and faulty judgment, without adverting to various items of evidence produced by the petitioner, particularly those at (Exh. P‑1) to (Exh.P.8) and the case needs to be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for rewriting of judgment after due consideration of the documentary evidence. 6: The perusal of the appointment letter dated 1‑5‑1969 (Exh. D‑1) indicates that the respondent had switched over from the post of B.C.G. Technician under the Director, Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore to the post of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination, Sheikhupura, under the control of Provincial Smallpox Eradication Officer, Lahore apparently severing all his connections with his previous department. According to the terms and conditions of service, as embodied in the appointment letter (Exh. P‑1) and (Exh. D‑1). his service, which was purely temporary, was terminable on service of one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. Since his Appointing Authority was Provincial Smallpox Eradication Officer, his service as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination were being controlled by him for all intents and purposes. If his performance at Rahimyar Khan as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination was unsatisfactory, his service could be terminated on one month notice or pay in lieu thereof by the Provincial Smallpox Eradication Establishment and he could not be sent back to the Directorate of Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore as an unwanted official because the latter department had ceased to have any connection with him after he had joined as Assistant Superintendent Vaccination at Rahimyar Khan under the new organisation known as Smallpox Eradication Organisation. The order of his withdrawal or transfer from Smallpox Eradication Organisation back to Directorate of Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore and his posting as B.C.G. Technician in Maternity Centre, Lahore by the Directorate of Health Services, Lahore Region, Lahore vide his letter dated 10‑9‑1970, was therefore, illegal and without lawful authority. However, his subsequent conduct of not obeying the order of transfer from Maternity Centre to Pindigheb as an Assistant Superintendent Vaccination, merely on the ground that he had challenged the order of his transfer from one department to another by means of the suit filed by him and later absenting from duty without leave for almost 20 years, as it has transpired during the course of argument, is certainly reprehensible. He is now in legal profession.

7. With the above observations, the civil revision is dismissed with no orders as to costs. F.R./G‑69/L Revision dismissed.