1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The relevant facts for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was serving as Assistant Professor, Government College of Commerce, Sahiwal when he was transferred and posted as Secretary, Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore vide Notification dated 19-7-1995. The terms and conditions of deputation are placed on record as Annexure E', according to which, the tenure of deputation was three years with effect from date of joining. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred through the impugned order before completion of three years. The petition came up for limine hearing on 10-11-1997 when copy was made over to Additional Advocate-General, who was present on Court's call, for instructions. The order has been complied with. Rana Muhammad Arif, learned Additional Advocate-General is present on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while Sh. Shahid Waheed, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order is illegal. It is submitted that the petitioner could not be transferred before expiry of three years. It is added that the action is also mala fide because respondent No. 3 was involved in lot of irregularities financial and otherwise. The staff union took up the matter at different levels and respondent No. 3 felt that the petitioner is backing them up, therefore, he in order to get rid off the petitioner, got himself transferred. The learned counsel has placed on record affidavit of the petitioner pin-pointing the illegalities committed by respondent No. 3 alongwith the documents spread over 182 pages.

3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General argued that there was tussle between the petitioner-Secretary and respondent No. 3 -?Chairman of the Board, who were making serious allegations against each other and prima facie most of the allegations and counter-allegations were correct. This had destroyed the discipline in the Board and it was decided to shift both of them. The learned Additional Advocate-General has also placed on record memo. dated 22-1-1998 sent to him by the Additional Secretary (Estt.), Education Department in this behalf. It is argued that E&D proceedings would be initiated against both the officers and the allegations against them would also be taken care of. While Sh. Shahid Waheed, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3, argued that as per O.M. dated 18-4-1978 an officer can be sent back even before the expiry of deputation period. It is added that the petitioner has no vested right to continue on deputation, therefore, he cannot maintain a Constitutional petition. In this behalf, he has referred to Pakistan v. Fazal Rahman Khundkar and another (PLD 1959 SC 82), Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab and others (1997 PLC (C.S.) 123 =1997 SCMR 169) and Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others 97 PLC (C S) 124= 1997 SCMR 170). It is argued that allegations against respondent No. 3 were incorrect. The same were looked into by the Anti-Corruption Department as well as Chief Minister's Inspection Team.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, gone through the record, relevant provisions of law, rules and precedent cases. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was on deputation for three years and period of deputation was to expire in July, 1998. However, as per O.M. dated 18-4-1978 relied by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the borrowing department may return the officer with the consultation of Additional Chief Secretary. The respondent No. 3 made a written request on 31-5-1997 asking for withdrawal of the officer. The same was considered by the Additional Chief Secretary and as a result thereof the impugned order of transfer was issued. The order has been passed in accordance with the policy, therefore, it is legal. Sh. Shahid Waheed, Advocate rightly argued with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fazal Rahman Khundkar and another (supra) that it is not vested right of a civil servant to continue on deputation, therefore, writ is not competent. In this behalf, reference can also be made to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as. Pakistan v. Muazzam Hussain Khan and another(PLD 1959 SC 13) and judgment of this Court reported as (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 376 while the cases of Abdul Qayyum v. Nasrullah Khan Draishak an others(1975 SCMR 320), Ala-ud-Din Akhtar v. Government of Punjab and another .(1982 CLC 515) and Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1989 Lahore 175 are clearly distinguishable as those were cases of statutory tenure and not fixed by the parties.

5. It is strange that the Government is following different sets of terms and conditions. In one set it is made clear that the officer could be recalled before the expiry of the period of deputation while other is relevant on this point. It should be clearly stated in the terms and conditions of each case of deputation that the officer is able to be recalled any moment without assigning any reason.

6. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 have made lot of serious allegations against each other. The petitioner has also filed written affidavit alongwith documents spread over about 182 pages. The matter was neither looked into by the Anti-Corruption Department properly nor by the Chief Minister's Inspection Team. Both have dealt with the matter very superficially. Therefore, I have called the Additional Director, Anti?corruption and handed over petitioner's affidavit alongwith documents and directed him to submit report by 9-3-1998. The Additional Director was firstly called for 21-1-1998 but he was not available. Then he was directed to appear on 22-1-1998 but in spite of intimation he did not appear when the case was called, therefore, it was decided to serve him with a notice to show cause why he should not be proceeded and punished for contempt of Court. The contempt matter is adjourned to 9-3-1998.

7. Before parting with the judgment I would like to refer to misuse of the cars according-to the record. The necessary facts are that respondent Board purchased three brand new cars one Corolla 1300 CC and two Suzuki Khyber 1000 CC. Corolla 1300 CC was retained by the Chairman ?respondent No. 3 in spite of fact neither he nor anyone else in the respondent-Board was entitled to 1300 CC car while two Suzuki Khyber 1000 c.c. Cars were sent to Education Department. There are documents on record, according to which, even POL expenses of these two cars are being paid from the funds of the Technical Board. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Government vehicles are being grossly misused. Even Ambulances are not spared. The Ministers and officers by and large send for the cars from their subordinate departments and offices over and above their entitlement. Some of premises look like the show rooms of car dealers rather than residential premises.

8. This judgment would be incomplete if notice of gross misuse of Government/official vehicle is not taken. In the present case for instance, two vehicles were purchased and maintained by respondent No. 2 but in the use of officers of the Education Department. This not only frustrated the provisions of budget but also the policy of the Government. It seems that after winning Independence moral side of the young officers is not being taken care of in the Academics or at least proper emphasis is not being given. If we want to enter 21st Century with heads up and dignity then the Government servants should live honestly to serve as a model for the public.

9. It is a matter of common knowledge that the policy as to the use of vehicles is not reasonable and this has given to rise massive misuse of the Government vehicles. The policy should be realistic, practicable and not for only decorative purposes. In this behalf, following guideline may be kept in view for use of available vehicles, which seem to be more than sufficient: (i) all officers of Grade-18 and above whether in field or in Secretariat may be allowed family use of vehicle of specific category and fix the limit of fuel at their disposal. This is essential to curb the tendency to violate the- policy and instructions as a matter of compulsion. Who is not aware that the honest officers, may be in any grade, cannot afford personal car and the same time they cannot do without a vehicle on account of status and life style they become used to during service in field. The result is that even most honest officers are indulging in misuse of vehicles. The other reason for misuse of the Government vehicles is that the Government servants especially senior officers even after their transfer do not vacate the official residence. The result is that they not only occupy the official residence against rules but they have also to withdraw Government vehicles from place of their posting to catre the needs of their families; (ii) all the departments, offices, institutions shall submit in writing the statements of all available vehicles showing their registration number, make, model and purpose for which the vehicles are being used; (iii) declaration that none of the vehicles has been lent, given or placed at the disposal of any other authority or office. In case this declaration is found incorrect then the deponent shall be liable to be proceeded for gross-misconduct and for corrupt as this is sort of bribe given to their superiors including political figures to won favours in service; and (iv) the ways and means should be adopted that the vehicles are used strictly by the person for the purpose which is in accordance with the rules and policy of the Government. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, to ensure that all efforts and means are made before next budget to have a clear cut policy in respect of use of Government/officials vehicles. He should also ensure action taken against officers of the Board, Local Audit, Accountant-General, Education and Finance Departments, who were responsible for allowing the purchase and use of three vehicles referred to above. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is dismissed in limine. A.A./A-240/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.