' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The appellant who is at present working as Junior Engineer in the WAPDA Sub-Division, has impugned the order passed by the WAPDA Authorities on 22-4-1996 whereby he has been transferred from Lahore to Quetta to work as a Revenue Officer instead of a Junior Engineer. He submitted his representation to the G.M. (PE&S) WAPDA, on 22-4-1996 whereby he protested against his transfer as well as against the change of his cadre. However, without waiting for statutory period of ninety days he has filed this appeal before the Tribunal with the prayer to set aside the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the Memo. Of appeal are that the appellant is working as a Junior Engineer in the WAPDA Establishment. While he was at Gujranwala he was transferred to Sheikhupura on 28-8-1994. He was transferred from Sheikhupura to Shah Kot on 28-9-1995 i,e, after about a stay of one year at Sheikhupura. Again the appellant was transferred from Shah Kot to L.D.A. Plaza, Lahore on 25-1-1996 i,e, after about a period of eight months. Thereafter, the appellant has been transferred from Lahore to Quetta on 22-4-1996 i,e, after the period of stay of three months at Lahore which order he has impugned before the Tribunal.
3. The appellant who appeared in person pleaded that he was transferred to different places four times over period of two years i,e, from 1994 to 1996. This did not only disturb his life, caused inconvenience to his family but also damaged the education of his children. He further pleaded that his present transfer to Quetta would create a lot of problems. His daughters are grown up. He cannot take them there. He is also not happy on the change of his cadre from Engineer to Revenue Officer. He has, therefore, prayed that his transfer be cancelled.
4. The respondents' side have filed their objections. The learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset, raised the objection that the appeal so filed by the appellant was not entertain able because he did not exhaust the departmental remedy, and that the transfer order (impugned order) was final one and subject to representation to the higher authorities and that no representation was filed by the appellant.
5. We, therefore, take this issue first. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has been transferred to four different places over the period of about two years, last time he has been transferred to Quetta i,e, 22-4-1996. The appellant submitted his appeal against the impugned order dated 22-4- 1996. In view of this position, the respondents claim that appellant did not submit any representation against the final order appears incorrect. It is although true that he, should have waited either its response or statutory period of 90 days, whichever was earlier, nevertheless, probably he presumed that the respondent might coerce him to join the new station. Under the circumstances, he thought better to approach the Tribunal rather than wait for the reply/expiry of 90 days. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the action of the appellant is understandable. We therefore, do not agree with the respondent, if the appeal is premature under the circumstances.
6. The respondents have also raised the objection that the appellant had addressed his representation (this has been denied earlier) to G.M. (PE&S) as such is incompetent. He should have filed it before Member (Power). In this regard it is pointed out, that it is a settled law, if the appeal is addressed to wrong authority, it is the duty of that authority to send to concerned authority. As such an argument has no substance and hence is repealed.
7. It has further been contended, that Chairman. Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala was competent Authority to transfer any employee upto BPS-17 within his jurisdiction. Because of poor performance of the appellant, he was given chance to prove his worth at Sheikhupura and Shah Kot. However, it has been alleged that the appellant failed to improve. The matter, therefore, was taken up in the meeting of Chairman, Area Electricity Board with authority which was held on 25-1-1996 wherein it was decided to transfer the appellant out of the Region, along with others immediately due to his performance. Resultantly all affected were transferred to the Head Office. Thereafter, it was decided to depute them for commercial training so that their services could be utilized as Revenue Officer. Accordingly the appellant along with others was sent to commercial procedure course at Power Distribution Academy, Islamabad, vide Office Order dated 2-4-1996 held with effect from 6- 4-1996 to 18-4-1996. All the Officers underwent training gladly knowing fully well that their services would be utilized as Revenue Officers. On the completion of the commercial' procedure course, the appellant was transferred and posted at Quetta.
8. It was argued that the transfer of the appellant was in accord with exigency of Authority's work, in accordance with the policy, of the Authority, and also in accordance with the clause of his appointment letter which is reproduced below:- "During the period of your employment, the competent Authority, may at any time, and without assigning any reasons, change your place of service, designation, duties or responsibilities and require you to serve the Authority anywhere in Pakistan."
' As such it has been stressed that, the objection of the appellant that his cadre should not be changed was not tenable.
9. Concluding his arguments, it was prayed, that the appeal having no substance might be very kindly dismissed.
10. We have heard both the parties and perused the record before us.
11. We find, the main reason to transfer the appellant was, his poor performance of his duties. But the question arises, do frequent transfers improve the efficiency of an employee, especially when, he is transferred, after every short period? In our opinion it does not. Rather it affects his performance very badly, for the reason, he would not be in a position to concentrate on the job, when fears other transfer. Yet another question is, an employee it he is not efficient and does not render better performance at one place, can he improve the same at other place? In our opinion it does not. The frequent transfer does not ensure good performance at the place of transfer. We have no doubt in our mind, that the authority can transfer and change the employees' cadre as is permissible under the law but it should be genuine and unprejudiced and should not violate the law of natural justice.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order is set aside accordingly the appeal is disposed of. With no order as to costs. Parties be informed.