1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Dr. Muhammad Akbar Farooqi, Veterinary Officer (H) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which be has impleaded the Director, Livestock Production Extension and Artificial Insemination Service. Punjab. Lahore and the Director General (Extension), Livestock and Dairy Development, Cooper Road, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of ibis appeal he has prayed that the transfer of the appellant to a far‑flung place like Noorpur Thai be declared as ineffective as the authority ordering his transfer, was not the competent authority in his case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was working as Veterinary Officer (Health) at Gujranwala was transferred by respondent No. 1 vide his order, dated 31st August, 1982, a Veterinary Officer Incharge, Civil Veterinary Hospital, Noorpur Thal District Khushab. The appellant filed an appeal to respondent No. 2 against the order of the respondent No. 1, bringing to his notice that the transfer of the appellant was not only contrary to the rules/instructions of the Government but also not sustainable therefore, the same be cancelled. However, the appeal was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide his latter, dated 18th November, 1982, as not maintainable. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department 'and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of respondent No. 1, dated 31st August, 1982 was without jurisdiction as the appellant belonged to the cadre of extension service and was drawing his Pay, Allowances, T. A. and other emoluments from Director Extension Service. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Veterinary Hospitals‑in the districts of Gujranwala, Sargodha, Sahiwal were placed under the administrative control of respondent No. 1, about 3 to 4 years ago, due to U. N D. P. Scheme and this area was known as Project area for this Scheme. According to learned counsel the scheme has come to an end from May, 19821, therefore, respondent No. 1 was no more competent to exercise the powers to transfer the appellant. It was also urged that the transfer was due to act of malice as the appellant happens to be President of the Punjab Veterinary Association and respondents are displeased with the activities of the said Association.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that according to the Delegation of Powers Rules, 1981, notified by the Govern ment of the Punjab vide Notification No. SOR‑III‑13‑14/79, dated 12th September, 1982, respondent No. 1 was competent to make transfers under his jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the Government of the Punjab vide their Order No. 11/(143) S O E (L & D D)/78, dated 23rd August, 1978 had transferred the administrative, technical and financial control of the Civil Veterinary Hospitals, Land Grants and other Animal Health activities in Gujranwala Sahiwal and Sargodha District, previously supervised by the Director (Extension) I & D D Punjab, Lahore, to respondent No. 1, therefore, respondent No. 1 was fully competent to transfer the appellant within his administrative jurisdiction. Learned District Attorney however, pointed out that the appellant was transferred on 31st Augus, 1982 but he failed to con,)ly with the said order in spite of the fact that the appeal of the appellant was rejected by respondent No. 2, therefore, he was abscopder from duty.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the letters so quoted and placed on the record by the learned District Attorney, fully justify his point of view that the authority who had transferred the appellant, was competent authority in his case and no exception can be taken to it. Moreover, we have no doubt in our mind that in the matter of transfer, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as according to section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a Govern ment servant is liable to be transferred any where in Punjab. In view of the said provision of the Act, so quoted above, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in matters of transfers, which is sole prerogative of the authority, competent to make such transfers.

8. The result is we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. However, there will be no order as to costs. M.I Appeal dismissed.