2009 SCMR 390 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar dated 25-9-2008 passed in Appeal No.806 of 2008.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that on 23-10-2007 Sajjid Hussain respondent, a Patwari, was transferred from Patwar Circle Qazipur to Patwar Circle, Sarai Saleh, from where he was transferred to Patwar Circle, Darvesh vide orders, dated 21-11-2007 and again on 14-6-2008 he was transferred from Patwar Circle, Darvesh to Patwar Circle, Qazipur. He challenged his transfer order, dated 14-6-2008 before the next higher authority/Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Peshawar, through an appeal which was dismissed vide, order, dated 17-6-2008. The respondent assailed the said orders before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar through Appeal No.806 of 2008, which has been accepted, vide the impugned judgment, dated 25-9-2008 and his transfer order, dated 14-6-2008 and the order dismissing his departmental appeal dated 17-6-2008 have been set aside. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was transferred by the competent authority on complaint of "misconduct" in the public interest and the Tribunal illegally set aside his transfer order; that the respondent being a Government servant, under section 10 of N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, was bound to serve anywhere in the "Province" and the competent authority was empowered to -transfer him any time, any where within its jurisdiction. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with their kind assistance. The petitioner had been posted as "Patwari" at Patwar Circle, Qazipur, while the respondent at Patwar Circle, Sarai Saleh, vide order, dated 23-10-2007. On 21-11-2007, the respondent was transferred from Patwar Circle, Sarai Saleh to Patwar Circle, Darvesh, from where he was again transferred to Patwar Circle, Qazipur, vide order, dated 14-6-2008. The successive transfers of the respondent to three stations within a span of eight months are against the posting/transfer policy of the Provincial Government, which indicated that a Government servant should not be transferred, in ordinary circumstances, prior to completion of a period of three years at one place of posting. It has been observed by this Court in case of Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530 that normal period of posting of three years, of a Government servant at a station, as per policy decision of the Government, is to be followed in ordinary circumstances unless for reasons of exigencies of service such policy had to be departed from. Government servant's repeated transfers from one place of posting to another in a span of few months by the orders of concerned Minister and carrying out of such orders by competent authority concerned, were highly unethical and undesirable.

5. The Tribunal after perusal of the available record has observed that the competent authority has passed the successive transfer orders without consulting the N.-W.F.P. District Government Rules of Business, 2001. The impugned transfer order of the respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) had been passed during ban period, prematurely and under the political influence, as the copy of the same was sent to the Private Secretary to the Minister of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. Subsection (3) of section 30 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001 has provided" the tenure of posting of an officer or official of the Government to a District Government, at the maximum, as three years, but he may be transferred earlier due to exigency of service or in the public interest.

6. As to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had been transferred by the competent authority on the basis of a complaint of misconduct, suffice it, to observe, that no document is available on the record of this Court to substantiate the same.

7. Even otherwise, the dispute raised in this petition for leave to appeal, relates to an individual grievance and no substantial question of law of public importance is involved to warrant interference by this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Nasir Khan v. Secretary Education, Government of Punjab and others 2000 PLC (C.S.) 312, Abdul Haq v. G.M. S.N.G.P. Ltd. 2000 SCMR 925 and Muhammad Binyamin v. WAPDA 1991 SCMR 382, wherein it has very clearly been observed that the contention raised by the petitioner besides being in the nature of an individual grievance and raising no question of law of public importance, disentitled him for grant of leave to appeal.

8. There is a question of fact involved in the matter and the findings of the Tribunal being a findings of fact, would not call for interference by this Court. Reference in this regard can be made to Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer Irrigation 1991 SCMR 255, Muhammad Nawaz v. Divisional Forest Officer, Islamabad and 2 others 1982 SCMR 880, Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director, H.M.C. Taxila and others PLD 2002 SC 13, Saboor Ahmad v. Managing Director, Sui Southern Company Limited and another 2002 SCMR 953 and Faiz Ahmad v. Deputy Postmaster-General, Lahore and others 1991 SCMR

368. After perusal of the record, we find no illegality, infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to justify interference by this Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./M-3/SC Petition dismissed.