The petitioner, who was an employee of the Punjab Road Transport Board (hereinafter referred to as the P.R.T.B.) since 1970 was transferred at his own request (Annex. B) to Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as P.U.T.C.) vide order dated 13th September, 1978, which reads as under : "Mr. Muhammad Munawar Qureshi O.D.S. (Technical) in National Pay Scale No, 18 is hereby permanently transferred from Punjab Road Transport Board to Punjab Urban Transport Corporation w.e,f. . 16th September 1978 (After-Noon) at his own request. His lien of Service with P. R. T. B. Is hereby terminated w. e. f. 16th September 1978 (After-Noon)."
' The petitioner reported for duty to the Managing Director of the P. U. T. C. Vide his letter dated 17th September, 1978 (Annex. '0').
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed a representation dated 16th September, 1978 (Annex 'F') saying that the Managing Director was not competent to terminate his lien without his consent. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent produced the original file showing that the letter in question had been handed over personally on 26th September, 1978. The respondent, however, considered and rejected the request of the petitioner vide letter dated 17th October, 1978 (Annex, 'I')
Para. 2 of the letter may be reproduced below for reference :- "Your lien was terminated at your explicit request as you had managed your acceptance in P.U.T.C.
To avoid posting to Bahawalpur The acceptance of posting order indicating termination of your lien with P.R.T.B. Is itself ample testimony to the same. It is, therefore, regretted that no representation against termination of lien because;: of your leaving P.R:T.B. For joining the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation can be entertained."
The petitioner admittedly did not relinquish the charge with the P.U.T.C. And never expressed his intention to come back to the P. R. T. B. On the rejection of his request for termination of his lien. On the other hand, he carried on with P. U. T. C. On 4th March, 1979, the P. U. T.C. Charged the petitioner with certain violations and served him with a charge-sheet (Annex. 'IC'). The reply of the petitioner was not accepted and he was consequently suspended on 24th March, 1979. On 3rd April, 1979, he made a representation that as he was an employee of P. R. T. B. The P. U. T. C. Was not competent to proceed against him on the basis of the charge-sheet. He also applied on 4th April, 1979, to the P.R.T.B. To reconsider his case and restore his terminated lien.
3. The P.U.T.C. On 11th April, 1979, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be sent back to the P. R. T. B. The petitioner vide his reply dated 11th April, 1979 (Annex. '13') did not contest and rather agreed to do so. The P.U.T.C. Released him and he reported to the P.R.T.B.
Who refused to let him join. The reason given was that his lien having already been terminated with it, he was no longer its employee. The petitioner challenges that order through the present writ petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the petitioner was an employee of the P.R.T.B., the termination of his lien amounts to his illegal removal from service, in violation of the Service Rules.
He referred to the P.R.T.B. Rules, 1972, to say that the petitioner could be thrown out only after observing the procedure laid down therein. He also relied on Farzand All Shah v. Addl. Inspector- General, Police in this regard and also referred to Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. P. R. T. B. . The case of Fayyaz All Khan v. Government of West Pakistan was also cited to support his plea.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents resisted this petition and stated as the petitioner had left his service with P. R. T. B. Of his own accord, he could not compel the respondents to retain his lien. It is argued that in case the petitioner was not satisfied with the order passed by the respondent originally and then on his representation, he ought to have either not joined the P. U. T.
C. Or reverted to the P. R. T. B. If he earlier joined under some misconception.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit and, therefore, must fail. It is to be noted that the petitioner was transferred permanently from P. R. T. B. At his own request to the P.U.T.C. The petitioner acted on that order and thus cannot say that only half of the order would apply to him. In any case, after the rejection of his representation he was naturally called upon to take a definite position. The petitioner instead of challenging the order against him further, neither reverted to P.R.T.B. Nor did he express his desire to do so. Rather, as is clear from the delivery of letter dated 16th September, 1978 (Annex. 'F') to the P.R.T.B., the petitioner even originally joined the new service without any reservation, protest or other understanding with P.R.T.B. on 17th September, 1978. Further, he acquiesced in the second order rejecting his representation. He shall, therefore, be deemed to have left the previous service in accordance with the terms as contained in the order dated 13th September, 1978 (Annex. 'F') reproduced above.
7. Even otherwise, the representation of the petitioner having been unequivocally rejected on 17th October, 1978 (portion reproduced above), he should have either reverted to his department or should have challenged the order there and then. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner continued his employment with the P. U. T. C. For about six months before he was served with a charge-sheet. In this view of the matter, it is conclusively proved on record that the petitioner had acquiesced in the termination of his lien and permanent absorption in the P. U. T. C. He therefore, cannot claim to be an employee of the P. R. T. B. And could not ask the respondents to let him revert to it as a matter of right. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from no defect.
This petition, in view of the above, has no merit and is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. 1 2 3