2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑ Order passed by pubic functionaries‑‑‑Principles‑‑‑Public functionaries are not supposed to pass order in arbitrary and capricious manner or in a fashion which may bring the result of victimization. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑-‑‑S.9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Transfer‑‑‑Non compliance of transfer policy‑‑‑Grievance of civil servant was that he was transferred before completion of normal period‑‑‑Transfer order was maintained by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant could not claim posting at a particular station or at the place of his choice‑‑‑Competent authority under S.9 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, was empowered to transfer any civil servant from one place to another at anytime in exigencies of service or on administrative ground‑‑‑Civil servant having been transferred on administrative ground, such order was not in violation of the transfer policy‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the judgment passed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 4th June, 2003. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J‑‑‑Leave in this petition is sought against the judgment dated, 9‑1‑2003 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore in service appeal wherein the order dated 25‑7‑2002 passed by the Secretary, Government of Punjab Health Department of transfer of the petitioner was challenged. The petitioner was posted as Chemical Examiner at Multan and was transferred for administrative reasons because of serious criticism in press on the report of the Chemical Examiner in a rape case. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal with the observation that posting of the petitioner at a particular station was not his legal right and that the transfer on administrative grounds was not a punishment or stigma. The Tribunal, however, observed that the use of incident of transfer for initiation of the departmental proceedings would be an administrative excess. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the transfer of the petitioner was neither in the public interest nor for any administrative ground rather the petitioner was transferred at the instance of District Police Officer, Sahiwal who wanted the petitioner to give report of his choice in a rape case contrary to the actual position and that the order was mala fide and petitioner was not mature for transfer. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not seeking posting of his choice rather he voiced his grievance against the transfer in an arbitrary and unjustified manner and that he was not given fair treatment in law. There is no cavil to the proposition that the public functionaries are not supposed to pass an order in arbitrary and capricious manner or in a fashion which may bring the result of victimization. However we having examined the matter have not been able to find out an element of malice or misuse of powers by the Secretary. It is settled law that a civil servant cannot claim posting at a particular station or at the place of his choice and the competent authority under section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 is empowered to transfer any civil servant from one place to another place at any time in the exigencies of the service or on administrative ground. The main grievance of the petitioner is that as per transfer policy he was transferred before completion of the normal B period and that too was made at the instance of a District Police Officer in violation of the transfer policy. It is clearly mentioned in the order that the petitioner was transferred on administrative ground, which would neither be in violation of the transfer policy nor contained any stigma and for the foregoing reasons we take no exception to the judgment of the Tribunal. We having found no merit in the petition dismiss the same accordingly. Leave is refused. M.H./I‑77/SC Petition dismissed.