1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28‑7‑1996 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 127 of 1996, filed by respondent No. 2 against the present petitioner and the department against his transfer order dated 15‑2‑1996, disposing of the same in terms of para.20 of the impugned judgment.

2. The brief facts are that respondent No.2 was working as Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Sahiwal, since September, 1994, wherefrom he was transferred after about one year and 2 months in November, 1995, with the direction to report for duty to the Punjab Local Government Board; Lahore. Pursuant to the above order, respondent No.2 reported for duty on 28‑11‑1995. After that he was posted as Chief Officer; Zila Council, Narowal, by an order dated 25‑1‑1996 issued by respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development. He assumed the charge of the said post on 31‑1‑1996. It seems that after a few weeks, another order dated 15‑2‑1996 was issued directing, respondent No. 2 to report to the Punjab Local Government Board for further posting and in his place, the present petitioner was posted. Respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid appeal in the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal found that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 exercised undue influence in getting the above postings. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal in terms of para. 20 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows: "

20. As is obvious in this case both the appellant and respondent No. 2 tried to overwhelm the competent Authority through their political influence by not allowing it to act independently and justly. This tendency on the part of the civil servants is paralysing the functionaries. The vested interests have to be discouraged for the sake of good governance, promoting public interest and for strengthening the institutions. We, therefore, cannot uphold the impugned order. At the same time, we are unhappy over the transfer of respondent No. 2 to his present posting at Narowal made in the absence of exercise of powers in accordance with the law referred to above. Under the circumstances we feel that the Government should decide the whole matter de novo. It will be worth considering if both the officers are deprived of the posting at Narowal which has led to the present race inter se them and which was obviously for the purpose not activated with a desire for service to the people. Let others who are in this race of using political influence also take a lesson from the Government decision of depriving both of these of Narowal posting so that they are discouraged from using undue political influence, in the matter of their transfer." The petitioner's grievance is that he should have been allowed to remain posted at Narowal in place of respondent No.2. He has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

4. Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in not maintaining the posting of the petitioner. We are unable to subscribe to the above submission. A perusal of the above‑quoted para from the impugned judgment indicates that the Tribunal, in order to discourage the tendency on the part of the civil servants to get postings of their choice by using illegal means, has passed a lust and appropriate order. It is for the department to decide fairly and justly, who should be posted as Chief Officer, Zila Council, Narowal. Neither the petitioner nor respondent No.2 has any vested right to remain or to get posted at the above place. Leave is refused. A.A./M‑3372/S Leave refused.