2000 PLP 141 (SCMR)

ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.

This petition impugns the correctness of the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal delivered on 17-5-1999; whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of her transfer, dated 19-11-1998, was dismissed.

2. The factual aspect of the case, as narrated in the memo: of appeal before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, is that the petitioner got employment on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission in Health Department as Woman Medical Officer in BPS-17 and was initially posted at Children Hospital, Haji Camp at Peshawar. When on 15-10-1995, she was promoted to Grad-18, then she was transferred to Post Graduate Medical Institute, L.H.R., Peshawar but later on, on shifting of the unit where she was employed to Hayat Abad Medical Complex her services were also transferred there. It was on 27-7-1998, that she was transferred, to Rural Health Centre Kiri Shamozai, District D.I. Khan against a vacant post of BPS-17. Petitioner challenged the said transfer order in the Service Tribunal, but during the proceedings before the Tribunal the transfer order was modified on 11-9-1998 and she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Thana Malakand Agency. This subsequent transfer order was challenged before the Tribunal on the ground of mala fide and "not made for professed purpose or administrative interest or in the exigencies of, service". It appears that husband of the petitioner is also a Doctor and was working as lecturer on the Teaching Staff of Khyber Medical College and he was also transferred to Agency Headquarters Hospital, Batkhela. This transfer order of her husband was also dubbed as mala fide on the ground that it was made in order to nullify the plea of the petitioner that she could not be transferred to a different station than that of her husband.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned transfer order was male fide and was tainted with malice which, according to him, was clear from the repeated transfer orders. He relied on Secretary to Government of Punjab Health Department v. Miss Sarwar Jehan Haq (1996 SCMR 374). This argument is devoid of substance as it could not be pointed out what was the nature of mala fide and at whose behest the transfer order was passed. Mala fide action must be specifically. pleaded, clarified and explained so that its nature is known which can then .be subjected to scrutiny But in this case the petitioner has not even remotely referred to it, what to say of substantiating it. Reliance on 1996 SCMR 374 is also misconceived as that does not cover the controversy involved in this petition. On the other hand the plea of the respondents in the comments before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal was that the petitioner all along right from the date of her appointment in 1986, has remained posted in Peshawar and during these 12 years she has not served for a single day in any other station. It was also explained that her husband has also remained posted at Peshawar for 15 years, therefore, .for the sake of good administration they were, for the first time, posted outside Peshawar. It has also been averred in the comments that as the petitioner was not willing to work at Kiri Shamozai, therefore, she was transferred to a place much near to Peshawar and her husband was also transferred to the nearby hospital where a post was available to adjust him. It was next argued that the transfer order was not in public interest as no reason has been given to show that it was passed keeping in view the welfare of the public. It is not necessary that in transfer order detail must be given to justify that it was made in the interest of public at-large. Transfer orders are passed in the discretion of the competent authority which cannot be challenged in routine on flimsy grounds but if such an order is impugned on the basis of mala fide or ulterior motive, then those must be specifically alleged and be established from some materials on record. We do not find that any substantial question of public importance arises in this case and, accordingly, while refusing leave to appeal dismiss this petition. M.B.A./S-150/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.