' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has sought declaration that the orders dated 5- 9-1989 and 16-9-1989 of respondents Nos.2 and 1 respectively are without jurisdiction and lawful authority.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a Sub-Engineer and was posted at Head Works Section Khanki while respondent No,3 who is also Sub-Engineer who was posted at Station Area Section Khanki. The respondent No,4 vide order dated 8-8-1989 transferred the petitioner. This order was issued in pursuance of the orders of Minister, Irrigation and Power Development, Punjab.
The petitioner represented to the Minister and got the order to his extent cancelled and accordingly respondent No,4 issued cancellation order on 28-8-1989. The respondent No,3 impugned cancellation order through a grievance petition under section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before respondent No,2 who proceeded to suspend the order of cancellation of transfer of the petitioner. The interim order was issued on 5-9-1989. The petitioner assailed the same through a revision before respondent No,1 who dismissed the same vide order dated 16-9-1989. The petitioner has now challenged both these orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2.
3. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents who have appeared and contested the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that respondent No,3 being a civil servant could not maintain a grievance petition before respondent No,2, therefore, the interim order is without jurisdiction and respondent No,1 failed to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The learned counsel in support of the argument has referred to cases reported as Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Dr. Safdar Mahmood PLD 1983 SC 100 and Abdul Ghafoor Gill v.
Senior Staff Officer 1987 PLC (C.S.)
125. It is added that even the grievance petition was premature.
In this behalf learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para. 2 of the impugned order of respondent No,2 dated 5-9-1989. The other submission is that respondent No,2 illegally issued mandatory injunction.. The submission in nut shell is that since the impugned order was implemented, therefore, a position not prevalent a the time of the injunction could not have been restored. The argument was concluded with the submission that respondent No,1 wrongly observed that petitioner can go back to respondent No,2 because said respondent has not issued any notice to his client and in fact there was no action for the same because the grievance petition had not been entertained by him.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,3 submitted that in fact the first transfer order was issued on 2-1-1989 by the competent authority. The same was cancelled by the Minister illegally and the orders dated 8-8-1989 and 28-8-1989 are illegal because respondent No,4 has not exercised his jurisdiction independently but he has simply given effect to the desire of his Minister. It is added that acceptance of this writ petition will amount to perpetuating an illegal order passed at the behest of the Minister, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. In this behalf the learned counsel has referred to the case of Nawab Syed Ronaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1974 SCMR 236. The arguments are concluded with the submission that conduct of the petitioner is not fair, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction which is discretionary. In this behalf the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner represented to this Court on 19-9-1989 that he was still holding the charge and secured the status quo order. It is submitted that this is factually incorrect as is clear from para. 14 of the reply of respondent No,4. It is added that the petitioner himself represented to the Minister that he is retiring in April, therefore, he could not be disturbed. The same position was maintained in this Court and the petitioner by making this misrepresentation got his transfer orders cancelled and on the same misrepresentation he got status quo order from this Court.
5-A. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The basic order of transfer of the petitioner and respondent No,3 is dated 8-8-1989. It is clear from the order that the same was passed at the behest of the Minister. Similarly, this order was cancelled at the asking of the Minister as is clear from memo dated 27-8-1989 appended as Annexure 'D', which was followed by order dated 28-8-1989. It is this order, which was challenged by respondent No,3 before respondent No,2. The petitioner and the respondent being civil servants, therefore, respondent No,2 had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Therefore, there is no difficulty in setting aside the impugned order of respondent No,2 dated 5-9-1989 as well as order of respondent No,1, who failed to appreciate the legal position and grievance of the petitioner.
However, the matter does not end here. The orders dated 18-8-1989 and 28-8-1989 are also illegal because the respondent No,4 has failed to exercise his jurisdiction independently. He just followed the dictates of Minister, therefore, following the decision in the case of Abdur Rauf v. Director- General, Rural Development, Sargodha and another 1989 PLC (C.S.) 436 the aforementioned two orders are also set aside. However, respondent No,4 is at liberty to pass fresh orders as he may deem fit in the exigency of service and in accordance with law within 15 days and till then the present position to be preserved. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.