Find a Lawyer

S.A. No.175 of 2010, decided on 27th October, 2010.

----S. 10---Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974), S.4---Transfer order---Direct appeal before the Service Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedy---Maintainability---Counsel for authorities had contended that appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable having been filed directly without exhausting departmental remedy---Contention was repelled as matter of transfer of civil servants being part of terms and conditions of their services, would fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Order of transfer of civil servant could straightaway be challenged before Service Tribunal without first exhausting the remedy of representation in the hierarchy of the department---If transfer order was mala fide or in violation of settled law, and was made for extraneous considerations to accommodate some blue eyed-chap, it would squarely fall within the domain of Service Tribunal---Said original orders of the departmental authorities against which no appeal had been provided, had been termed as the original final orders; whereas in those cases where appeal lay, the order passed in appeal was the final order---Order of the departmental authority for the transfer of the civil servant was such against which, no departmental appeal lay before the higher authority; in such a situation, if the aggrieved civil servant wanted to get relief, could immediately approach the Administrative Court or the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

----S. 10---Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974), S.4---Transfer order---Question of transfer/posting under S.10 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 fell within the domain of competent authority, but such discretion must not be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner---Such discretion had to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fairplay---Government was required/duty bound to exercise the discretion keeping in view the nature of duty and requisite capabilities in a fair and impartial manner---There should be no extraneous considerations---Transfer order, if mala fide or in violation of settled law, for extraneous consideration, would fall within the domain of the Service Tribunal---Normally, a civil servant would not be transferred from one station to another, prior to the completion of prescribed period of tenure---Civil servants were generally permitted to complete their normal tenure in case of transfer from one place to another---Such principle had to be followed in the ordinary circumstances, unless for reasons of exigencies of service---Impugned transfer order of the appellant was deviation from normal procedure and transfer/posting Policy, for which even reasons were not assigned---Appellant was going to be retired within a period of 4/5 months; his transfer order, in circumstances smacked of arbitrariness; and was not tenable having been passed in clear violation of transfer/posting Policy, 2003---Notification whereby appellant was transferred, was set aside and appellant would retain his earlier position.

M. Wasy Tareen for Appellant.

Nasrullah Achakazai, A.A.-G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing:26th October, 2010.

This appeal under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974 has been filed by Mr. Mehboob Khan (appellant) against his transfer order dated 21-9-2010 whereby he was transferred from the post of Acting Chief Engineer Khuzdar to Acting Chief Engineer Design.

2. The relevant facts in small compass are that the appellant is Superintending Engineer (B-19) and was posted as Acting Chief Engineer Khuzdar Region. As per appellant he had been performing his duties to the best of his abilities and no complaint whatsoever in nature against him was made. It is case of the appellant that in spite of clear instructions/guidelines issued by the Government of Balochistan about the Transfer Posting Policy, the respondent No.1 with mala fides transferred him through impugned Notification dated 21-9-2010.

3. On the other hand, the respondents contested the appeal on legal and factual grounds by filing their written replies.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their valuable assistance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Wassay Tareen, Advocate contended that the impugned order is against the law, hence not tenable. He also argued that the order in question is based on mala fides and has been passed just to accommodate influential person.

6. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate-General Balochistan Mr. Nasrullah Achakzai Advocate contended that the appeal is not maintainable being filed directly without exhausting departmental remedy and the question of transfer/posting exclusively falls within the domain/jurisdiction of the competent authority. He further contended that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.

7. We are not in agreement with the learned Assistant Advocate-General Balochistan on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable being filed directly before this Tribunal without exhausting the alternate remedy of filing departmental appeal. We are of the considered view that transfer of civil servants being part of terms and conditions of their services, would fall within exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

8. It is now settled principle of law that an order of transfer of civil servant can straight away be challenged before Service Tribunal without first exhausting the remedy of representation in the hierarchy of the department.

9. There is no cavil with the proposition that the question of transfer/posting under section 10 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 falls within the domain of competent authority but it is equally important to note that such discretion must not be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. Such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fairplay. The Government is required/duty bound to exercise the discretion keeping in view the nature of duties and requisite capabilities in a fair and impartial manner and there should be no extraneous considerations. Therefore, the transfer order, if mala fide or in violation of settled law, made for extraneous consideration to accommodate some blue eyed chap, it would squarely fall within the domain of this Tribunal.

10. It is also worth mentioning that those original orders of the departmental authorities against which no appeal has been provided, have been termed as the original final orders whereas in those cases where appeal lies, the order passed in appeal is the final order. The order of the departmental authority for the transfer of the civil servant is such against which, under the said rules no departmental appeal lies before the higher authority. Therefore, in such a situation the aggrieved civil servant, if he wants to get relief, may immediately approach the administrative Court or Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.

11. Reverting to the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to mention here that the appellant is Superintending Engineer and he was posted as Acting Chief Engineer Khuzdar Region on 20th April, 2009, whereas respondent No.2 was appointed as Acting Chief Engineer Design on 2nd March, 2010. It is settled principle of law that normally a civil servant shall not be transferred from one station to another prior to completion of scribed period of tenure. Civil servants are generally permitted to complete their normal tenure in case of transfer from one place to another. Such principle has to be followed in the ordinary circumstances, unless for reasons of exigencies of services. The Government of Balochistan (Regulation-1) No.SORI-4(15)S&GAD/369-469 dated 12th March 2003 dealing with the "Transfer Posting", reads as follows:---

(I) Pre-mature posting/transfer is a burden on the Government exchequer and heavy amount is incurred under the head of T.A/D.A.

(IV) Frequent Posting/Transfer should be avoided.

(V) A reasonable tenure of posting at a station may be fixed i.e. at least two years.

12. It is crystal clear that the impugned order is deviation from normal procedure and transfer posting policy mentioned herein above for which even reasons are not assigned. Admittedly the appellant is going to be retired within a period of 4/5 months. As such, the transfer order smacked of arbitrariness and is not tenable being passed in clear violation of transfer/posting Policy 2003.

13. For the discussion, made herein above the impugned Notification No.SCW(SOA)2-3/2010/5642-55 dated 21-9-2010 is hereby set aside and appellant will retain his earlier position. There shall be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./19/BST Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.