' The facts relevant for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner took C.S.S. Examination successfully in the year 1974. He was allocated to D.M.G. Group and after completing training was posted as A.C. In N.-W.F.P. In February, 1977. He, also, served in the Secretariat for some time in that Province. However, in July, 1978, he was transferred to Punjab where he remained posted as Section Officer, Deputy Secretary and Additional Secretary in various departments of the Government of Punjab, and during this period he was promoted to Grade-18 in 1981 and to Grade- 19 on 29-1-1991. The grievance voiced through this petition is that though he is in D.M.G. Group yet he has been deprived of his usual posting in field as Deputy Commissioner and other executive posts. It is added that this is all mala fide and illegal because of discriminatory treatment.
' The petition came up for limine hearing when the respondents were directed to submit report and parawise comments. In the meanwhile, respondents Nos. 3 to 12 moved an application for impleading them as parties to the writ petition: Their claim was that they can assist this Court to effectively decide the controversy raised by the petitioner. This application was allowed on 25-10- 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the amended petition. The same was admitted to regular hearing and notice was issued to the respondents, who have appeared through counsel and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, argued that the petitioner has mala fide been deprived of usual executive posting in the field as Deputy Commissioner. It is added that it is a clear case of discrimination because even his junior colleagues have been posted as Deputy Commissioner of various districts. It is submitted that the petitioner has been sidelined for the last 17 years although there is nothing in his usual posting in the field.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Pasha, learned Deputy Attorney-General argued that posting and transfer is in the discretion of the Government. In this behalf he has referred to section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He added that the Government where ordering posting of the civil servants has to keep in view the public interest and also the administrative exigencies. He added that the petitioner was not given any field posting on account of mala fide but it was due to the reason that he had stinking reputation besides pendency of two departmental inquiries for misusing his official position. He was involved in a criminal case.
4. Mr. Sabir Hussain Shah, Advocate for respondent No, 1 argued that the post of D.C. Is selection post. It is added that the Deputy Commissioner of a district holds pivotal position in the smooth running of the administration. The officers like the petitioner, who did not enjoy good reputation cannot be posted against such sensitive posts. He added that the enquiry against the petitioner and his brother Habib-ur-Rehman is pending on the charges that the accused civil servants obtained lease of Coal, Salika Sand and Gypsum Mines from the Mineral Development Department in the name of their mother through fake auction and after her demise the same were administered by them. While another enquiry as to the charges of acquiring two lift pumps from Agriculture Department through cheating and fraud by the petitioner is under process with the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 argued that he wonders how the officers like the petitioner continues in premium service of an Islamic Republic. He referred to the following matters which are as under:--
(i) F.I.R. No, 25 of 1988 registered with the Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore, on 24-11-1988 under section 420/468/471/218/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947;
(ii) the letter from Deputy Director (General) Headquarters, Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab to Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 29-12-1988 asking for cancellation of lease in the name of the petitioner and others and that its resumption in public interest;
(iii) report of Assistant Director (Investigation) is 24-1-1989 then report of R.M. Kot Radha Kishan as to the use of prisoners for cultivation of the lands by the petitioner;
(iv) enquiry report of Assistant Commissioner, Kasur, submitted in obedience to the order of this Court dated 7-2-1993 wherein it was held that the parolees were provided to petitioner and his brother;
(v) F.I.Rs, Nos. 307/92 and 315/92 registered at Police Station, Nankana Sahib and F.I.R. No, 230 registered at Police Station, Gowalmandi, Lahore under section 292/506, P.P.C. And many other documents show that the petitioner has association and close links with persons involved in criminal cases;
(vi) the documents to show that lease of agricultural land was secured by petitioner in District Sheikhupura and the address given both at Kasur and Sheikhupura was 40-Nisbet Road, Lahore; and
(vii) questions Nos. 1050 and 1051 moved by Malik Karamat Ali Dogar, M.PA. About the misconduct of the petitioner in the Provincial Assembly.
' The learned counsel summed up the arguments with the submission that his clients as citizens have brought the misdeeds of the petitioner to the notice of this Court as well as to the notice of the Members of the Provincial Assembly by raising questions. Their duty as citizens is over.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Dogar, Advocate while replying to the arguments on behalf of the respondents maintained that the petitioner and his brother have a family dispute about lands situated in Kasur and their adversaries are trying to tarnish their image in the official circles as well as elsewhere by distorting the correct facts. He added that the application moved by respondents Nos. 3 to 12 is sufficient to prove this contention. It is added that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are depriving the petitioner of normal posting in the field on false pretexts. He added that there is nothing in the A.C.R. Dossiers of the petitioner to deprive him of his normal posting of a D.M.G. Group Officers.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner himself has relied on part of the ESTACODE, which reads as under:-- "4. In view of the importance of the post of Deputy Commissioner which at present is a Grade-18 post carrying special pay, it has been decided as follows:-
(i) The post of Deputy Commissioner would be a selection post and selection will be made from amongst officers having at least 10 years' service in Police, Armed Forces, Civil Administration or Military Lands and Cantonments Departments. The selected persons shall be given training in administration and law, if necessary, before posting as Deputy Commissioner.
(ii) To ensure appointments of experienced persons, the post of Deputy Commissioner in major Districts will be placed in Grade-19. As in other groups, for promotion to Grade-19 a minimum service of 12 years in Grade-17/18 shall be a condition precedent."
It is clear from the above provision of the ESTACODE that the post of Deputy Commissioner is a selection post, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim posting as a matter of right. Moreover, the transfers, as pointed out by the learned Deputy Attorney-General are in the discretion of the concerned Government.
8. Now coming to the allegations against the petitioner. The first F.I.R. Is dated 24-11-1988. The explanation that it is a land dispute is not acceptable on the face of it because the allegations are also as to acquiring of lease of Minerals in the name of his mother, which continued even after her death. The allegations are prima facie proved by the fact that the petitioner remained posted in Industries Department. Then there are allegations of misuse of prolees and prisoners. It is admitted that the petitioner was posted in the Home Department. Then there are allegations of fraudulently depriving the Government of two pumps. The petitioner admittedly remained posted as S.O. In Agricultural Department. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 12 that wherever the petitioner remained posted there were allegations of misuse of his official position.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 when argued that he wonders how the petitioner is still in service in face of such scandalous career. He posed this question for reply by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Attorney-General and the learned counsel representing the Provincial Government but all of them very intelligently avoided answering this basic question. The same is, therefore, left to be answered by the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan.
10. Now coming to the reasons for not giving field posting to the petitioners. I am in perfect agreement with the learned Deputy Attorney-General and the counsel for the Punjab Government that the petitioner was not found fit at all for selection post of the Deputy Commissioner which is sensitive and pivotal in the administration. It is a matter of record that wherever the petitioner was posted as S.O., Deputy Secretary or Additional Secretary there were allegations of serious nature.
11. It is not in anybody's interest not to decide allegations of such serious nature against a member of service responsible for maning the key posts in the administration. The tragedy is neither the petitioner is being exonerated of the allegations nor punished for misdeeds. If he is not guilty then he is entitled to be exonerated at the earliest possible occasion and if he is guilty then it is all the more essential to relieve the country, citizens, his own on colleagues in service to which he belongs of humiliation they face or likely to face on account of his misdeeds. There were allegations of such nature against the officials in the recorded history but those were the servants of East India Company and not a country muchless of Islamic Republic.
12. It is a matter of great regret that in spite of these allegations he continued to serve in his home Province. Even the persons at the helm of the affairs did not give the public a temporary relief of his shifting to another Province. It is not for this Court to advise Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan or Chief Secretary but the minimum requirement is that such persons should be immediately shifted from that province and proceedings against them should be finalised within the minimum possible time. In this case neither learned counsel for petitioner nor the learned Deputy Attorney-General nor the learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 was in a position to reply what happened to the cases registered by the Anti-Corruption Department, therefore, it can be safely presume that the same are still pending.
13. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of mala fide or discrimination, therefore, writ is not competent. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rana Muhammad Sarwar v. Government of Punjab (1990 SCM R 999). The allegations fully justify the action of the two Governments and in the circumstances, direction cannot be issued because Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of injustice. In this behalf, reference can be made to the cases reported as Begum Shams-un-Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another (PLD 1982 SC 413) and Muhammad Saleem v. Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and another (PLD 1992 SC 369).
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with Rs,15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as costs which, if recovered, Rs,5,000 should be paid to respondents Nos. 3 to 12.