1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ISHRAT SULTANA Versus PAKISTAN CENTRAL COTTON COMMITTEE, KARACHI through Secretary and 2 others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Wajihuddin Ahmad and Sh. Ahmad Yar Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ISHRAT SULTANA Versus PAKISTAN CENTRAL COTTON COMMITTEE, KARACHI through Secretary and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: S. Wajihuddin Ahmad and Sh. Ahmad Yar Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ISHRAT SULTANA Versus PAKISTAN CENTRAL COTTON COMMITTEE, KARACHI through Secretary and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Arif Hussain for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Transfer‑‑‑Appellate Authority on remand again maintained transfer of employee without giving any reasons and without deciding matter judiciously‑‑ Apart from that Director of the Institution where employee was transferred had also objected to take employee giving reasons‑‑‑Behaviour of officers who were responsible for transfer of employee clearly indicated that they were motivated by bias against employee‑‑‑Ex facie exercise of power of transfer being a colourable exercise, order of transfer was void and could not sustain.
Judgment & Decree
S. WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑‑We have heard this matter. Evidently an earlier petition filed by the petitioner namely, 983 of 1993 was disposed of by this Court and the matter upon a statement from the side of respondents was remanded for reconsideration by the respondent No.2, Vice- President, Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, on the basis that his earlier decision in the appeal of the petitioner did not spell out any reasons. The same officer through an order dated 23‑9‑1993 maintained the transfer of the petitioner to Multan but gave reasons for the same which, on examination, we find to be more in the nature of repudiation of averments of the petitioner in the appeal rather than adjudications by a superior officer competent to hear an appeal. Let its legible copy as Annexure `R‑1' be placed on this file. Apart from the foregoing, we have been referred to a letter of objection addressed by the Director of same institute at Multan dated 1‑4‑1993 where he objected to the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that before making any transfer his consent may be taken, inter alia, because such transfer orders create disciplinary problems at the Multan Branch. He also observed that he did not know of the qualifications of the Research Assistant or of the reason for her transfer to Multan institute. In the margin of such letter the respondent No.2, who heard the petitioner's appeal wrote, "He need not know the reason". Underneath the letter the same respondent made observation, "I do not like the tone. Please inform him and he should be careful in future". Significantly, this document, as R/U has been filed with the comments, As R/V is another document which showed that in "turn the said letter of the Director, Cotton Research Institute, Multan, was returned to him without so much as, a reply and with the tacit remark, "the contents are not acceptable by the competent authority". To say the least, these matters are reminiscent of an imperial and dictatorial system of Government and don't fit into our system at all which is based on the rule of law. This also indicates that there may be substance in what the petitioner pleads namely, that the officers whom she had identified are motivated by bias against her. In such circumstances, we admit this petition to regular hearing. 3. Since ex facie the exercise of power of transfer is a colourable exercise, the order may ultimately be found, if the petition is accepted, to be void. For this reason, we grant this application. H.B.T./I‑243/K Application granted.