CH. IJAZ AHMAD. J.- The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was transferred on 2-9-1997 from Noorpur Branch District Pakpattan Sharif to Regional Office Sahiwal.
The petitioner aggrieved by the transfer order filed present writ petition which was fixed before this Court on 10-9-1997. The impugned order was suspended vide order dated 10-9-1997. Subsequently the case was fixed on 16-9-1997. The respondents filed C.M, No. 2431/97 for vacation of stay order dated 10-9-1997, in which the notice was issued to the writ-petitioner. This C.M. And main petition have been fixed for hearing. Since morning the case has been repeatedly called. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel has entered appearance. Keeping in view the principle laid down in P.L.D.
1969 S.C. 270, instead of dismissing the case of non-prosecution I am inclined to. Decide this writ petition on merits.
2. The contents of writ petition revealed that petitioner was posted in Noorpur Branch on 10-9-1995 and was transferred on 18-8-1997 and thereafter the same was cancelled vide order dated 25- 8*-1997 and subsequently petitioner was transferred vide order dated 2-9-1997 which has been challenged through this writ petition. The contents of writ petition further revealed that the petitioner was transferred in violation of transfer policy of the respondents as well as in the presence of ban imposed by the Government on such transfer.
3. This writ petition was admitted on the basis of principle laid down in Zahid Akhtar's case (P.L.D.
1995 S.C. 530).
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that principle laid down in Zahid Akhtar's case is not attracted in this case as the petitioner was not repeatedly transferred. He was transferred round about after two 'years, therefore, principle of Zahid Akhtar's case is not attracted.
He further argued that the petitioner was transferred purely on administrative point of view by the Department and the petitioner was not transferred in far of area but he was transferred within 25 K.M. It is further argued that there are no statutory Rules of the Department. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Janjua's case (P.L.D. 1974 S.C. 146). It is further argued that principle of master and servant is also attracted, thereafter, writ petition is not maintainable as is held in Anwar Hussain's case (1992 SCM R 1112).
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the respondents. The respondents' counsel contended that conduct of the' petitioner is of such a nature that his transfer order was suspended vide order dated 10-9-1997 but neither the petitioner not his counsel has appeared today since morning till 11.45 a.m. It is discretionary relief, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as is held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Haji Saifullah's case (P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 266). The contents of writ petition does not disclose violation of any Rule of the Department, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable even otherwise in Anwar Hussain's case aforesaid of the same department in which Supreme Court has taken a view that principle of master and servant is applicable.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.