' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 31-8- 2004, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,1244 of 2004, which was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant District Officer (Revenue) Gujrat in the month of January, 2004 and was also assigned the duties of Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), General Assistant (Revenue) and Officer Incharge (Litigation) in addition to his own duties. According to the petitioner, on account of his high degree of honesty, good performance and qualification, on 7-5-2004, he submitted an application to the District Coordination Officer, Gujrat, requesting for No Objection Certificate to the post of Director (Provost) at Rachna College of Engineering and Technology, Gujranwala. It is the case of the petitioner that due to this letter, District Coordination Officer, Gujrat, out of malice directed him to relinquish the charge on the same day viz., 11-5-2004 and further directed him to report to his parent department for further posting. The petitioner being aggrieved of the orders of the District Coordination Officer, submitted departmental representation/ appeal to the Additional Chief Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, who vide his order, dated 1-6-2004 dismissed his representation/appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person, who submitted that he was posted at Gujrat in January, 2004 and as envisaged under the transfer policy, he was required to serve there for a period of three years but he was transferred and his services were placed at the disposal of Government of the Punjab because he displeased the District Coordination Officer, Gujrat while submitting application referred to hereinabove; that the judgment of the Tribunal as well as order of the Government of the Punjab are not sustainable, and that leave may be granted.
4. We have considered the arguments of the petitioner and carefully perused the record available.
The contentions of the petitioner are not borne out from the record rather it shows that his transfer from Gujrat took place not only due to the application but there were lot. Of complaints against him which were thoroughly probed in and finally it was found that the petitioner is not working according to the settled principles of good governance and is creating hurdles in the ordinary functions of the department. According to section 9of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, "every civil servant be liable to serve anywhere within or outside the Province in any post under the Government of the Punjab". The request of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the transfer orders actually amounts to the interference in the smooth Working of the Government and the petitioner as a right cannot claim to be Posted at one place rather he is required to serve anywhere against the post to which he is transferred. The orders of the authority as well as the ihpttgned judgment of the Tribunal are entirely in consonance With the law laid down by this Court. It would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- "(7) The reproduction of the relevant material in the preceding paragraphs would show that the District Coordination Officer became so fed up with the conduct of the appellant that he had no option but to surrender him to his parent department. For all intents and purposes it was not in the administrative interest to linger and scope with the appellant as Deputy District Officer (Revenue)
Gujrat. To say that if the appellant was guilty of any act of misconduct departmental proceedings could have been launched and transfer was not the remedy to rectify such conduct may be true but the appellant has himself admitted that no disciplinary proceedings have yet been launched for any misconduct on his part, therefore, the instances quoted by the District Coordination Officer, Gujrat goes to show that appellant created an embarrassing situation in the District for his superiors and by and large with passage of time the District Coordination Officer felt that the administrative interests of his office got throttled every time a complaint came to him by the public against the appellant, therefore, the transfer of the appellant by asking him to report to Services and General Administration Department was for administrative reasons. No doubt, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the case of Zahid Akhtar v. Government of the Punjab, Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and two others supra that Government servants repeated transfers from one place to another in a span of few months by the order of Minister concerned and carrying out such orders obediently by the Secretary of the department concerned is highly unethical and undesirable and that normal period of posting of Government servant at a station as per policy decision of Government being for three years, has to be followed in ordinary circumstances unless for reasons of exigencies of service such policy has to be deviated from. The ruling given by the apex. Court that normal period of posting of a Government servant has to be in ordinary circumstances for three years unless for reasons of exigencies of service such policy has to be departed from, gives sufficient room for movement in the present case for reasons which have been discussed. Moreover, a policy matter does not have the force of law and can be deviated if good reasons are forthcoming. There is no hard and fast rule that Government servant can in no case be transferred before he completes three years service at a particular station. To the contrary section 9 ibid makes it a mandatory for a civil servant to be posted anywhere in the Province and he has no right as such to claim continuance of service at a particular station. So, the transfer policy is merely based on convenience but if such convenience is abused as in the present case the Government can always transfer the civil servant to avoid embarrassm ent to itself. It would be worthwhile to quote from an unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal bearing No,2051-L/2004 to 2055- L/2004 and 2104-L/2004 titled 'District Coordination Officer and others v. Mst. Parveen Shandi and others. The relevant portion is reproduced for facility of reference:--- "As far as question regarding the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain appeals against the transfer and posting order is concerned it will be examined because we are, prima facie, of the opinion that in such-like matters in terms of section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, civil servant is bound to serve anywhere in the Province and Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals unless it is shown that there is some provision of law which binds the Government not to shift a civil servant from one place to another. For the above reasons, petitions stand disposed of".
' No doubt the verdict has not assumed form of adjudication after hearing both sides in regular appeal yet every word in any order of the Supreme Court is law to be followed by all Courts as ordained under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. No provision of law has been quoted by the appellant to show that the Government is under an obligation not to shift civil servant from one place to another. By going through the comments submitted by the respondents, I have come across a reference made to the posting of the appellant as Special Judicial Magistrate, Chishtian after getting the concurrence from the Honourable Chief Justice and Judges of the Lahore High Court."
5. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and is result of proper appreciation of the available material and the provisions of the law, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
Moreover, a substantial question of law of general public importance, as envisaged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is not involved in this case.
6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the petition is without merit and substance, which is, hereby dismissed along .With the listed application and leave declined.