' S. HAFEEZ-DR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-This is an appeal against transfer of the appellant from the post of Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Office of the Director General (Extension), Lahore, to the post of Assistant Director, Livestock and Dairy Development, Mianwali. The appeal has been made on the ground that this is not an ordinary transfer but has been ordered as a punishment for a misdemeanor net committed by the appellant.
2. We heard the parties, Mr. M.A. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the transfer had been ordered because of misconception of the respondent that the appellant was conducting a campaign against him through the Punjab Veterinary Association. The appellant had been informed by the Deputy Secretary of the Department orally that the transfer was by way of punishment. It was submitted that transfer on disciplinary grounds could only come about after proceedings had been initiated against a civil servant under the E & D Rules. It was also submitted that the D.G. Extension was the immediate superior of the appellant and only he can issue such order. By making the order himself the respondent had assumed authority which should only be exercised by the D. G. Extension. The Delegation of Powers Rules in the case of the post held by the appellant define the transferring authority as Director, Livestock & Dairy Development whose powers ware !Low being exercised by the D. G. Extension. On the other hand, the learned D. A.
Submitted that the appeal was filed merely as a delaying tactic. The appellant was not an aggrieved person at all because transfer cannot be objected to by civil servants who, under section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, are liable to serve any-where in the Province. The subject of the appeal was, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Moreover, the point raised by the appellant in respect of competency of the Secretary to issue the transfer order was not based on facts. The Delegation of Powers Rules for the Office of D. G. Extension have not yet been framed and the rules quoted above on behalf of the appellant relate to the Director, Livestock and Dairy Dev. And not the D. G. Extension. In the absence of Delegation of Powers Rules Government was empowered to issue order of transfer sinee this power had not so far been delegated to any other authority by Government i. e. The respondent.
3. On 27th August, 1981 when this appeal came up before us we issued an order from which we quote "Ordinarily we would hesitate to interfere in any transfer order. In this case too the transfer order itself does not mention any charge or allegation or complaint on the basis of which the transfer has been ordered. We have only the appellant's word that this transfer is the result of entagonism against him. We have also taken note of the letter No, 1681 dated 13th August, 1981 written by the D.G. (Extension) L & D D to the Secretary of the Department in which D.G., has expressed his opposition to the transfer of the appellant and has regarded it as part of intrigue against the D.G. In addition, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the transfer order has not been issued by the competent authority because in the case of the appellant the authority competent to transfer him would be the Director Extension. As stated above we would not like to interfere in an administrative matter like routine transfer, but in view of the facts stated above we think that we should hear the parties on this issue before appellant hands over the charge and proceeds on transfer in compliance with the transfer order. Since early hearing would be necessary in order not to impede the administrative function of the Department notices be issued to the parties to appear before us on 8th September, 1981."
4. Arguments in this case were heard on 13th September, 1981. After hearing both the parties we have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the impugned order which could be objected to by the appellant. Our purpose in issuing notice to the respondent was to satisfy ourselves that the appellant was not being victimised as alleged by him. Broadly speaking, two issues were raised on behalf of the appellant viz., that the order was passed by an incompetent authority, and that the transfer was motivated by reasons of harboured by the respondent against the appellant and was meant as a punishment. After hearing the learned D.A., we are satisfied that the respondent was competent to issue the transfer order in his capacity as Secretary to Government ; while the objection taken about transfer being by way of punishment has been vehemently denied. We have no reason to believe that a senior officer of the status of Secretary to Government would stood to the level of having a confrontation with an Assistant Director and transfer hint t9 Mianwali on this score.
5. In view of the above we feel that no valid reason exists for us to' entertain this appeal, We, therefore, dismiss it in limine. While doing so we hope that the Respondent will try to remove from the mind of the appellant any suspicion that may lie there about his being victimized through the impugned transfer order.