MUHAMMAD SHAN GUL, J. This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No.8943 of 2021 titled "Muhammad Shahid v. Secretary Food and others". This petition has been filed by Muhammad Shahid, Assistant Accounts Officer, Controller General Accounts, Islamabad, laying a challenge to an Order dated 05.05.2021, passed by Secretary , Government of Punjab, Food Department whereby his deputation period of three years has been cut short by six months and he has been surrendered to his parent department i.e. Controller General Accounts, Islamabad with immediate ef fect on administrative grounds.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present matter are that the petitioner who is a civil servant (except for the period of deputation) and a BPS-1 7 officer was sent on deputation by his parent, department i.e. Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad so as to serve in the Food Department, Government of Punjab on deputation for a term of three years vide order dated 03.12.2018. By way of order dated 19.01.2019, the petitioner , Muhammad Shahid, joined his place of deputation and started serving Food Department, Government of Punjab. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner specializes in audit and accounts and it is for the reason of an internal audit that his services were requisitioned and the subsequent deputation was ordered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three years time period meant for the deputation of the petitioner to remain in force has been maliciously cut short and ignored and the impugn ed Order has been passed in derogation of the time period envisaged in the terms and conditions of the appoint ment Order of the petitioner . He further submits that the Order is rooted in malice and reeks of bad faith inasmuch as the actual reason for surrendering the services of the petitioner is that the petitioner was supposed to undertake an internal audit and that, therefore, in, order to prevent the petitioner from undertaking such an internal audit, concerned employees of the Food Department who would have been placed in a spot of bother as a result of such internal audit being undertaken, ganged up against the petitioner and managed to convince the hierarchy of the Food Department to surrender the services of the petitioner . The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however , not produced any document or correspondence to establish such alleged malice. (Kindly see Saeed Ahmed's case PLD 1974 SC 151). He has also not produced any precedent case to reinforce his submissions. He has, in passing, also referred to Annex-"J" in the petition which is a Notification of the S&GAD dated 04.07.2016 deprecating the practice of surrendering officials. This Notification on the face of it bears no reference to a deputationist and rather applies to all civil servants but not deputationists.
4. Notice was issued to the Province and the learned AAG appeared. He has been heard as well. He objects to the maintainability of this petition. He further submits that since an external audit of Food Department by an independent team of Chartered Accountants had already taken place, therefore, there was no need for an internal audit since the same would have served no separate purpose and it is on this count and in this context that the correspondence dated 10.12.2020 annexed as Annex-G with this petition came to pass: Through this correspondence the lack of need for an internal audit after an external audit had already taken place was expressed and discussed between the hierarchy of the Food Department. Learned AAG also submits that the petitioner has no right to approach this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction because while an established right can be made the basis for approaching this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, this jurisdiction is not meant for establishing a right and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Kindly see "Asdullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan Internatio nal Airlines Corporation and others" (2005 SCMR 445) at Paragraph No.10 as also "Kandaswamy and others v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Coimbatore and another" (AIR 1954 Madras 348).
5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the AAG and propose to decide this matter as a regular case.
6. Straightaway , it can be noticed that the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish as to what vested or legal right of the petitioner is at stake, let alone a basic fundamental right. He has been A repeatedly asked whether any justiciable right of the petitioner was being compromised but he has failed to point out any established right of the petitioner and has only repeated his bald assertions about the order being mala fide.
7. The term 'deputation' has not been defined either in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or in the Rules made thereunder . The Superior . Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakista n have judicially interpreted the term deputation in a number of judgments while taking into account Chapter IX of the Establishment Manual Volume-I. In "Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Israru l Haq and 23 others" (PLD 1981 SC 531) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held:- "Hitherto, the term "deputation" has not been formally defined. However , according to the practice in vogue a Government Servant begins to be regarded as a "deputationist" when he is appointed or transferred, through the process of selection, to a post in a department or service altogether different from the one to which he permanently belongs. He continues to be placed in this category so long as he holds the new post in an officiating or a temporary capacity but ceases to be regarded as such either on confirmation in the new post or on reversion to his substantive post."
In "Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq and others v. Government of Punjab and others" (1996 PLC (C.S.) 134) it has been held as under: "15. The term 'deputation' has not been defined either in the Act of 1974 or Rules framed thereunder . It is clear from its incidents that it is a specie of transfer . In other words, it is a transfer outside his service, cadre or the functional unit..........."
8. In "Dr. Shaft-ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman and others" (2010 SCMR 378) it has been held as under:- "deputation can be defined as an administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending Authorities for utilizing the services of an employee in the public interest and exigency of services against a particular post and the deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in accordance with his own whims and wishes.
In the light of the above referred judgm ents of the hon'ble Superior Courts of Pakistan, it can be said that "deputation ""is an appointment of a civil servant by transfer , to a post in a department or service altogether different from the one to which that civil servant permanently belongs."
According to the Indian Supreme Court, i.e. AIR 1998 SC 7 (State of Punjab v. Inder Singh ) the dictionary meaning of the term 'deputation' is of no help in understanding the concept of deputation as it exists in the realm of administrative law. And that 'deputation' means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. It is the act of deputing, transferring or postin g an employee to a post outside cadre, to another department on a temporary basis. Therefore, deputation can be described as an assignment of an employee of one department or cadre or an organization (referred to as the Lending Department) to another department (the Borrowing Authority).
The need, of course, is based on exigencies and requirements of public service.
9. As can be seen from the judicially approved definition of the term 'deputation', for an employee, it is in the nature of a transfer . Rather it is a specie of the wider genus of transfer , albeit outside his existing cadre. Transfer and posting being an incidence of service, it naturally follows that deputation also comes within the realm of conditions of service. That a deputationist is not treated as a civil servant during the period of his deputation makes no difference in this respect. A government servant (including both, civil servants and deputationists) in terms of the governing law, can be ordered to serve at any place by the competent authority and short of allegations of political victimization or unfair labour practice, transfer orders of government servants are, generally and ordinarily , not interfered with because the courts show respect to the exercise of discretion by the competent authorities on the administrative and executive side and also because transfer is an incidence of service. Such judicial treatment of transfer and posting being the norm, the exercise of being sent on deputation or of being withdrawn from such deputation and being surrendered, hardly qualifies as a justiciable matter . In fact it is a polycentric matter
10. Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman and others (2010 SCMR 378), "Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary and others" (2013 SCMR 1752 ) and "Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others "
(2015 SCMR 456) clearly deprecate unnecessary deputation and insist that only such civil servants who fulfill the eligibility criteria for the post to which they seek deputation should be allowed deputation and that too for a particular period and not as of right and only on account of exigencies of service and on account of non-availability of relevant expertise in the department seeking deputation and not otherwise. Likewise, it is also well settled that a deputationist does not have any vested right to remain at the post of deputation indefinitely or even for a stipulated period. He can be repatriated to his parent department at any time. The parent departme nt is free and at liberty to recall its officers as and when exigencies of service so require and, likewise, the borrowing department cannot be held hostage to the period of deputation and can send the deputationist back if the exigencies of service or the public interest so demand or even on administrative grounds.
11. The basic principle underlying depu tation itself is that the deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue on deputation.
12. As back as in 1959, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Pakistan v. Fazal Rahman Khundkar and another" (PLD 1959 SC 82) has held, "it is a matter of practice and common experience that the officers of the provincial cadre deputed for service at the center are frequently recalled by their provinces in the exigencies of public service. Against such a recall they have no right of any kind to object, being substantially officers of the Provincial Government and only on deputation to the Center . It was also held that the period of deputation in no manner operates as a bar to the making of an order by the Central Government at the request of the Provincial Government for placing officers at the disposal of their parent department. Similarly the judgment reported as "Abdul Khaliq Anjum v. Secretary Education, Government of Punjab and 2 others" (1998 PLC (C. S.) 839) holds to the same effect and rules that there is nothing legally wrong in a deputationist being surrendered to his parent department before expiry of period of deputation.
13. At this juncture, a close look at Clause-17 of the Deputation Policy of Government of Punjab issued vide Notification No.6-13/97 dated 13.08.1998 may be in order:- "17. PERIOD OF DEPUT ATION-- The period of deputation shall not exce ed three years. However , Government reserves the right to withdraw/transfer the deputationist at any time without assigning any reason. In case the deputationist retires while on deputation the period of deputation shall stand expired on the date of his retirement."
Clause-17 quoted above declares the right of the government to withdraw IF the deputation order at any time without assigning any reason.
14. In "Senate Secretariat through Chairman and another v. Miss Faiqa Abdul Hayee" (2014 SCMR 522) it has been held at paragraph No.7 as under:- "7. There can be no cavil to the proposition the employer has the right and autho rity to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his/her parent department......"
The Hon'ble apex Court in "S. Masood Abbas Rizvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and others" (2014 SCMR 799 ), has made the following observations:- "4. It is settled principle that a deputation ist does not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period, he could be ordered to be repatriated to the parent Department at any time without assigning any reason......."
A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court has elaborated this principle of law, in "Zahoor Khan v.
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others" (2015 PLC (C.S.) 824 ), as under: "8 So far as the main grievance of the petitioner regarding non-completion of his deputation period of three years and his repatriation to his parent department is concerned, suffice it to say that the deputation means administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending Authorities for utilizing the services of an employee in the public interest, which in no stretch of imagination accrues any right to a deputa tionist to continue for a period of deputation for which his services were acquired and here is no law in field to support such grievance of the petitioner . It is part of the service of a civil servant that he can be transferred or adjusted on deputation and repatriated at any time without any reasons by the authority as and when exigency of service requires......."
15. Hence, it is clear from the above referred judgments of the Hon'ble Superior Courts that the period of deputation may be terminated and the civil servant serving on deputation may be repatriated, at any time, without any reasons by the lending as well as upon the request of the borrowing authority as and when exigencies of service so require.
16. The rationale behind this trite and established position of law is not hard to discern. Deputation is made purely on account of administrative exigencies and for the purpose of administrative convenience. As and when a particular department is faced with a shortfall of technically savvy personnel trained in a particular field, it can seek the services of technically qualified persons in that field from some other department of the same government or even from another government of the country . It is for the borrowing department to decide as to when a deputationist is no more required. A deputationist, therefore, cannot be thrust upon an unwilling department. This would compromise the autonomy of the department besides heightening and accentuating a non-existent vested right which is alien to trite and established law . .17. In "S. Masood Abbas Rizvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Esta blishment and others "
(2014 SCMR 799) it has been unequivocally held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that a deputationist does not have any vested right to remain on the post as a deputationist for a stipulated period, he could be ordered to repatriated to the parent department at any time without assigning any reason. That, likewise, in "Dr. Shafi-ur- Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman and others " (2010 SCMR 378) similar observations about a deputationist not having any vested right to continue for a stipulated period have been made. A deputationist, therefore, has no actionable right to continue as deputationist and can be ordered to be repatriated or relieved at any time.
18. In the same judgment i.e. "Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A ., Islamabad through Chairman and others" (2010 SCMR 378) it has been held at Page-383 that a Constitutional petition was not maintainable at the instance of a deputationist. It has also been held that a deputationist by no stretch of imagination and in the absence of any specific provision of law can ask to serve total period of deputation and he can be repatriated being a deputationist in the interest of exigencies of service as and when so desired and such order cannot be questioned. It has been acknowledged that the Civil Service Act, 1973 or the rules made thereunder or even the ESTA CODE are silent about a deputationist serving his entire period of deputation and that there seems to be a reason behind this and which is that the competent authority must not be fettered from utilizing or not utilizing the services of an employee in the manner that it may deem fit and proper . Therefore, no vested right is available to a deputationist to serve his entire period of deputation in the borrowing department.
19.In "Mst. Robia Ayub v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , Ministry of Educ ation and others" (2013 of (C. S.) 915) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that a deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or even for a stipulated period. He has no vested right to complete the deputation period as it is a matter relating purely to his terms of service. The competent authority of the borrowing department has sole discretion whether to allow a deputationist to continue or to repatriate him at any H time to his parent department.
20. It is amply clear from the above that the ethos of the concept of deputation reveals that it can only come to pass with the consent of lender and borrowing departments and the incumbent of the post has no right, either to ask for completion of tenure, or even to any right to remain on deputation as such. At any time, the lending department can require services of its officers by ordering their repatriation and similarly the borrowing department can relieve or spare him as no longer required.
21. Looked at from another angle the same result can be reached. Deputation is in the nature of a three-way contract and can be continued only if all the parties want it to continue. The moment this tripartite agreement is repudiated by means of non-adherence by the departments, the employee has no legally enforceable right to continue to complete the agreed period of his deputation.
22. At the end, it may also be necessary to advert to the arguments of the petitioners' counsel about the surrender of the petitioner being against public interest. The insistence of the petitioner to continue with his deputation, since according to him it could lead to unearth ing of corrupt practices, is indeed misplaced. Even if the petitioner goes back to his parent department, he still has the option to either approach the National Accountability Bureau or the Ant-Corruption Authorities or even the local police against what, according to him, are corrupt practices. A complaint can be filed by any person, and therefore this argument, too, ends like a damp squib.
23. For what has been discussed above, this petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly , dismissed.