1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
KHALID JAVED KHALID Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | KHALID JAVED KHALID Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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 Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (KHALID JAVED KHALID Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Jamshed Ali Shah for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondent No. 1.
- Hafiz Tariq Nasirn for Respondent No. 2.
- 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General argued that there were many complaints against the petitioner and an enquiry is also pending as a result of which it has been decided to place him under suspension but on account of interim order passed by this Court the suspension order is not being served on the petitioner. It is added that although strictly speaking the interim order did not restrain the respondent from suspending the petitioner but in that case it was not possible to shift the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A: G. for Respondent No.
1. Hafiz Tariq Nasirn for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1994. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has challenged the order dated 17‑3‑1994 whereby he was transferred from Jhang and was directed to report to Punjab Local Government Board for further posting. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the petitioner was posted in Jhang on 16‑2‑1994 and almost after a month again he has been transferred. It is added that the whole exercise is mala fide and for the purpose of accommodating respondent No. 2 at the cost of the petitioner. It is added that transfer has been ordered not in accordance with the policy governing the transfers of civil servants and not in the public interest.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General argued that there were many complaints against the petitioner and an enquiry is also pending as a result of which it has been decided to place him under suspension but on account of interim order passed by this Court the suspension order is not being served on the petitioner. It is added that although strictly speaking the interim order did not restrain the respondent from suspending the petitioner but in that case it was not possible to shift the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that the petitioner got the posting at Jhang on the basis of political influence and in this behalf he has referred to the directive of the C.M. It is further argued that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments addressed by the parties. The transfer order in these circumstances is fully justified. It is in the public interest to expeditiously decide disciplinary proceedings against the civil servant. The present posting has been made keeping in view the finalization of the enquiry.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T/K‑139/L Petition dismissed.