MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Aasim Majeed Meer , impugns the office order dated 14.06.2019 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("M.F .A."), whereby he has been repatriated to his parent department i.e., Intelligence Bureau.
2. Office order dated 16.01.2017 issued by the M.F.A. shows that the petitioner , who was a Sub Inspector (BPS-14) in the Intelligence Bureau, was selected to serve as a deputationist in the M.F.A. for a period of three years. He joined his duties as Assistant (BPS-15) in the M.F.A. Vide office order dated 14.06.2019 issued by the M.F.A., the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department with immediate effect. The petitioner assailed the said office order before this Court and was able to obtain an injunctive order on 13.09.2019. This petition was not fixed for hearing for two and a half years after the said injunctive order was issued. It was not until the M.F.A. filed an application for early hearing on 28.02.2022 that the petition was fixed for hearing. Due to the inordinate delay in the fixation of this petition, the petitioner continued to obtain the benefit of the injunctive order by serving as a deputationist in the M.F .A.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was serving as a deputationist in the M.F.A., he suffered from liver cirrhosis which necessitated liver transplant; that the petitioner underwent liver transplant surgery at Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad and thereafter rejoined his duties as a deputationist; that there was an allegation against the petitioner that his invoice for the purchase of certain medicine was not authentic; that a fact finding inquiry was conducted in the matter and thereafter vide memorandum dated 26.10.2018, the petitioner was called upon to explain his position; that after the petitioner submitted a written explanation on 09.11.2018, no further proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were conducted against him; that since the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department is based on flawed findings in the fact finding inquiry , the repatriation order is liable to be set-aside; that the petitioner had applied to the M.F.A. for his absorption in the borrowing department; and that the petitioner had been discriminated against inasmuch as his application had been kept pending whereas similar applications made by two other deputationists had been processed and their parent departments had been requested to provide N.O.C.s for their permanent absorption in the M.F.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General submitted that two of the medical bills for the reimbursement had been examined by the M.F.A. and it had been found that the invoice for the purchase of the medicine "Nexavar" was fictitious; and that although the petitioner had been repatriated on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Committee, he has already served as a deputationist for a period of three years i.e., the period for which he was appointed as a deputationist in the M.F.A., therefore, his repatriation order does not suffer from any legal infirmity . Learned Deputy Attorney-General prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient details in paragraph 2 above and need not be recapitulated.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had been sent on deputation in January , 2017 to the M.F.A. for a period of three years and that he has already served as a deputationist in the M.F.A. for more than three years.
After the issuance of the impugned office order dated 14.06.2019 for his repatriation, the petitioner continued serving as a deputationist in the M.F .A. on the basis of the injunctive order dated 13.09.2019 passed by this Court.
8. It is settled law that a deputationist may not necessarily complete the tenure for which he was sent on deputation and the power vested with the competent authority to repatriate a deputationist without assigning any reason. In case of transfer on deputation, no vested right accrued to a deputationist to continue for the period of deputation.
The competent authority was empowered to repatriate a deputationist as and when the exigencies of service required. Some of the cases in which this view has been taken are mentioned herein below:-
(i) In the case of Pakistan Vs. Fazal Rehman Khundkar (PLD 1959 Supreme Court (Pak.) 82), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that it is a matter of practice and common experience, that officers of the Provincial cadres deputed for service at the Centre are frequently recalled by their Province, by the Provincial Government, in the exigencies of the public service. Against such a recall they have no right of any kind to object, being substantively officers of the Provinc ial Government and only on deputation to the Centre. The mere fact that they may be holding at the Centre a post higher in rank than that to which their place in the Provincial cadre entitles them in the Provincial service does not constitute the least bar to the making of an order by the Central Government at the request of the Provincial Government, re-placing the services of such an officer at the disposal of his parent Government.
(ii) In the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi Vs. CDA, Islamabad (2010 SCMR 378), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973, and rules made thereunder as well as Esta Code were silent about the fact that a deputationist must serve his entire period of deputation and such omission seemed deliberate enabling the competent authority to utilize service of an employee in the manner as it might deem fit and proper . Period of deputation could at the best be equated to that of an expression of maximum period which could be curtailed or extended by competent authority and no legal or vested rights were available to a deputationist to serve his entire period of deputation in borrowing department.
(iii) In the case of Mst. Robia Ayub Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2013 PLC (C.S.) 915), it has been held by this Court that a deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in accordance with his/her own whims and wishes. Civil servant has no vested right to complete the deputation period as it is a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service. Competent authority of borrowing department having sole discretion to decide fate of deputationist could repatriate him at any time to parent department.
(iv) In case of Abdul Majeed Vs. Chief Secretary, Punjab (2015 PLC (C.S.) 1381), it has been held by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court that a deputationist did not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period. A deputationist could be ordered to be repatriated to his parent department at any time without assigning any reason. Parent department of appellant-employee was not bound to assign reason for his repatriation.
(v) In case of Lal Khan Vs. Employees Old Age Benefit Institution (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1377), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh that a deputationist had no vested right to remain on post forever or for a stipulated period. A deputationist could not challenge order of his repatriation as he could be repatriated to parent department at any time.
9. On account of the above referred trite law, the petitioner could not have any grievance against his repatriation by the borrowing department to his parent department. Another vital question that needs to be answered is whether the petitioner could have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to prevent his repatriation to the parent department. The law in this regard is also well settled. In the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi Vs. CDA, Islamabad (2010 SCMR 378), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that a deputationist cannot be treated as an 'aggrieved person' because he has no vested right to remain on a post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period as mentioned in notification and can be repatriated at any time.
10. At no material stage, has the petitioner been absorbed in the borrowing department. His parent department has not issued a no objection certificate' for his absorption in the M.F.A. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner's parent department had no objection to the petitioner's absorption in the M.F.A. it would not give the petitioner a vested right for absorption in the borrowing department. In the case at hand, the petitioner has been repatriated after completing his deputation period.
11. At no material stage have any disciplinary proceedings been initiated against the petitioner under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Therefore, the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department does not stigmatize him in any manner.
12. By reason of the aforementioned, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.