' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant joined the service under the Education Division as a lecturer in the then Central Government Intermediate College for Girls, Islamabad on 29-9- 1968. Initially the appointment was in Class-II and later on the posts of lecturers were upgraded, in 1970, to Class-I, and thus the appellant was placed in BPS-17 in 1972. Being a senior most lecturer she was promoted to the post of Principal Central Government College for Women, Islamabad on 14-3-1972. She remained on this position till 3-3-1987 and in the meanwhile she was granted move- over to BPS-20 on 1-12-1986. She was appointed as Director, Colleges in the Federal Directorate of Education on 3-3-1987 and she remained there till 18-9-1988. Thereafter, she was posted as Secretary, Inter Board Committee of Chairmen from 19-9-1988 to 19-7-1989. She remained Chairman, Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education from 20-7-1989 to 9-9-1991. On 10-9-1991 she was promoted as Director-General (B-20) Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad. Vide order dated 20-10-1994 she was confirmed as Director-General in BPS-20 with effect from 10-9-1991. Thus, the appellant had a smooth and brilliant record of service for almost twenty seven years. The trouble started when, on 14-2-1995, the Ministry of Education issued order 'of her transfer from the post of Director-General, Federal Directorate of Education and her service were placed at the disposal of PNE Wing of the Ministry of Education and Prof. Muhammad Akram was posted as Director-General. After 14-2-1995 she was posted as follows:
(i) 15-2-1995. To 27-4-1995 PNE Wing, Ministry of Education (waiting for orders).
(ii) 27-4-1995 to 31-12-1995 As Managing Director, National Education Foundation, Islamabad.
(iii) 1-1-1996 to 15-1-1996 Administrative Wing, Ministry of Education (waiting for orders).
2. On 15-1-1996 she reported to the F.I. Wing of the Ministry of Education as the Administrative Wing had asked the appellant to report to F.I. Wing vide letter dated 11-1-1996. Thus, within a period of less than one year she was transferred and posted four times, either irregularly on deputation basis to autonomous bodies or by curtailing such tenure of deputation without any rhyme or reasons and finally she was compelled to join Federal Institutions Wing of the Ministry of Education with no posting and no salary etc. Despite the fact that she was a regularly confirmed Officer in the permanent post of B-20 as the Director-General of Federal Directorate of Education and she held lien against the said post till her superannuation or absorption against a higher post.
3. This state of affairs has been challenged by the appellant on 18-1-1996 in her communication addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad with the request that the mental torture and humiliation suffered by her during last one year amounted to maltreatment, maladministration and harassm ent of an honest and upright officer. She requested that her service may be utilized in the cadre of Federal Government Educational Institutions. In this letter she also stated that she has not been paid salary for 10-1/2 months during her stay at the National Education Foundation and her terms and conditions of service were also not specified for the said period. Vide another letter dated 3-3-1996 she informed the Joint Educational Adviser that the salary for the months of March to December. 1995 was released in the month of February, 1996 and the salary for the period of 1st January onwards was not paid as yet. In the meanwhile vide a Notification dated 15-2-1996 her services were placed at the disposal of Pakistan National Commission for UNESCO, Islamabad for her posting as Deputy Secretary-General in her own pay and scale with effect from 1-1-1996. However, vide letter dated 26-2-1996, the said Commission intimated that the Commission had only two posts of Deputy Secretaries-General in BPS-19 and both the said posts were already filled, therefore, the appellant, a senior officer in BPS-20, could not be adjusted against the said post. The appellant filed the present service appeal on 28th March, 1996 praying for the following reliefs:
(i) That the notification dated 15-2-1996 may not be implemented.
(ii) That the respondents be restrained from issuing any notification for transfer, posting, deputation, etc. Without the approval of the Establishment Division.
(iii) That the respondents should restore the only post in B-20 to her, against which she has a permanent lien.
(iv) That the emoluments due to the appellant may be released.
(v) That the respondents be restrained from recording the A.C.R. For the year 1995 onwards.
4. The appellant had cited Dr. Akhtar Hasan Khan, Secretary, Ministry of Education as a respondent No, I by name and certain allegations were made against him, as a motive for the mala fides on his behalf. A letter dated 4-9-1989 was placed on file which was addressed by the respondent No, 1 to the appellant, while latter was serving as the Chairperson, Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad, for intimation of provisional marks of the son of respondent No, 1 to enable him for admission in Agha Khan Medical College. The appellant contended that she was not in a position to declare the result of one student, and that too partially and provisionally, therefore, she refused to accede to the request and consequently the respondent No, 1 got annoyed and he subjected the appellant to the said humiliation and mental torture right from his becoming the Secretary. Ministry of Education The respondent No, 1, consequently. Appeared in person in this Tribunal on 23-5-1996 to, clear the doubts that he had not initiated the action against the appellant but his predecessor, Mr. M.M. Usmani, had moved the summary in February, 1994 for the posting of the appellant to the National Education Foundation and the summary was approved by the competent Authority on 28-4-1994. Hence the respondent No, 1 tried to meet the allegations of mala fides against him.
5. We have perused the record and listened to the arguments on behalf of the parties on various dates of hearing. On the last date of hearing, 11-6-1996, we were told that a new development was taken place and an office order dated 4-6- 1996 had been issued (as amended by a corrigendum dated 6-6-1996) whereby the appellant had been adjusted against the post of Member in the Prime Minister's Literacy Commission in her own pay and grade i,e, B-20 with immediate effect and until further orders. The appellant, consequently, addressed a letter to respondent No, 1 pointing out certain defects in the said office order and requested for settlement of terms and conditions of service on deputation. During the hearing of 11- 6-1996 the appellant was advised by the Tribunal to join the new place of posting and in compliance thereof she has endorsed a copy of joining report, which is placed on the file. Thus, after six months of her waiting for orders she has ultimately been adjusted against an equivalent post, although the order suffers from material defects, as discussed in the succeeding paragraph.
6. During this period of 1-1/2 years the appellant, a senior civil servant with an excellent service record extending over twenty seven years, has been treated in a way which is unprecedented.
During her service for almost quarter of a century she received commendations, awards and rewards. Her performance was properly recognized not only by promotions but also by certificates, special assignments and grant of award/decoration. There had been no, complaint whatsoever about her attitude to the students, behavior with general public or interaction with the official circles. The entire length of meritorious service was finally tarnished during the last 1-1/2 years by all sorts of accusation, charges and reports about unfitness to hold a public office due to short tempers, rude behavior and failure to tackle the situation. Such an abrupt change definitely attracts the doubts of mala fides particularly when a responsible, honest and experienced officer is tossed around from one place to another and. In most of the cases, in an irregular manner.
7. The brief resume of the episode extending over 1-1/2 years will show that the law, rules and the administrative instructions have been violated and ignored. The amended section 2 of the Civil Servants Act provides that the terms and conditions of service of civil servant shall not be varied to his disadvantage but right from 27-4-1995 till 11-6-1996 the terms and conditions of the appellant have not only been varied but, in certain cases, they were totally negated. She had been without the monthly salary for several months together. She was a permanent civil servant of B-20 and was frequently appointed from a Government institution to an autonomous or statutory body and transferred, at convenience, to another statutory body or the Government institution. The administrative instructions provide for every such type of situation with different set of instructions and the statutory provisions of the Civil Servant Act also provides for the various modes of appointment, posting and transfer. Section 10 of the Civil Servant Act (as amended) provides that civil servant shall be liable to serve anywhere within or outside Pakistan in any "equivalent or higher post" under the Federal Government or a Corporation or body set up or established by any such Government and the second proviso to section 10 provides for protection of terms and conditions of service in case a civil servant is required to serve in a post outside his service or cadre. In the instant case the appellant was required to serve outside her cadre but no terms and conditions of service have so far been settled and even the Federal Government did not ensure whether the incumbent, transferred to a particular post, will be able to receive her monthly salary. There were several spells of period when the appellant was forced to remain without a post (waiting for orders) and thus during those days she practically remained without any duty to be performed.
Thereafter, when she was adjusted somewhere her pay was arranged to be released for the previous period with retrospective effect. All this will be sufficient, in ordinary state of affairs, to amount to mala fides, vindictiveness and harassment.
8. The comments, on behalf of the respondents, describe it as a prerogative of Federal Government to utilise the services of a civil servant wherever it is deemed fit, but even then certain restrictions are imposed by the instructions of Federal Government itself which ,have to be followed and honored. When a person belonging to a particular service or cadre is transferred to another cadre or autonomous body, it amounts to deputation and the terms and conditions of such civil servant have to be settled between the borrowing agency and the lending authority. The tenure of such appointment is also a term and condition of service as per Civil Servants Act and when the tenure is so fixed and notified, it has to be honored by both the borrowing and lending authorities, except in very special circumstances, when the borrowing agency directs the repatriation of a deputations. We see that in none of these orders, the borrowing agency had repatriated the appellant. The lending authority i,e, Federal Government places the services of the appellant for a fixed tenure of three years with an autonomous body, in its capacity as borrowing agency, and later on. without the expiry of tenure and without any action by the borrowing agency, the lending authority suo motu orders further transfer and posting of the appellant. All this is not only irregular but also unfair and inequitable if not totally illegal.
9. The competent Authority, for the civil servants in the senior scales is the Federal Government in the Establishment Division. This Division has been impleaded by the appellant as respondent No, 2.
Most of the orders were passed by the respondent No, 1, i,e, Ministry of Education without any approval by the Establishment Division. The original summary for the posting of the appellant in the National Education Council was initiated somewhere in February, 1994 which was approved by the competent Authority in April, 1994. However, the order of transfer was issued one year thereafter i,e, on 27-4-1995. This order, though belated, was issued by the Establishment Division and the services of the appellant were placed with the National Education Foundation for a period of three years.
However, this agreed tenure of three years was retrenched irregularly when a summary was moved in November, 1995, for her dislocation. A unique type of order was passed on 1-1-1996 where an Assistant Educational Adviser of the Ministry of Education writes: "The undersigned is directed to request Miss Afroze Begum, Managing Director, National Education Foundation to relinquish the charge of MD (NEF) to new Managing Director, Dr. Muhammad Afzal Haque, with effect from 1-1-1996 forenoon. Furthermore, she is also requested kindly to report in Adman. Wing of this Ministry for adjustment/further posting."
' This is an unprecedented treatment to a senior officer. The letter does not indicate any order by the competent Authority or the Establishment Division. Even the latest order, dated 4-6-1996 as amended vide letter dated 6-6-1996, is full of defects. Firstly it does not indicate any approval by the competent Authority i,e, the Establishment Division. Secondly the officers of the BPS-20, are normally not transferred by office order, but proper notifications are issued for their movement and such notifications are published in the official Gazettes. Neither the order is mentioned as a notification nor is it proposed to be published in the official Gazette. Thirdly, the office order simply mentions that Miss Afroze Begum was being adjusted as if she was a fresh entrant to the civil service without having any permanent lien against a permanent post or without any designation or official address from where she is being relieved to be appointed in the said Commission.
Fourthly, the Literacy Commission is an autonomous body and the appellant was a confirmed civil servant and her terms and conditions had to be settled in anticipation to her posting in the said body. Fifthly, the senior civil servants are not simply transferred and posted from Government Institutions to autonomous bodies. Simple posting is possible within the cadre or service but it is never ordered outside the cadre or service. When a civil servant, of the status of appellant, is appointed against a vacancy in an autonomous body, the notification has to mention that the services of such civil servants are placed at the disposal of such borrowing agency for appointment against such post and for the specific period. None of these requirements and prerequisites has been fulfilled in the said order. Sixthly, the office order has been issued on 4-6- 1996 and has been addressed to the appellant as if she was already holding the post where she has been appointed by the said office order. This has no precedent in the office procedures. Lastly, the notification with regard to post of senior officers are sent for information to concerned authorities including the President, the Prime Minister, the Establishment Division etc. In the instant order no such formality has been considered to be necessary and the perusal of the said office order simply shows as if a private applicant has been adjusted on the recommendation of the Minister for Education and such recommendation is routed through the Education Secretary and so the compliance is being reported to the Private Secretaries to the Minister and the Secretary. The analysis of this single order will show the height of irresponsibility or the intentional irregularity to humiliate the civil servant concerned which is likely to result in several career problems, in future, for the appellant.
10. Thus in the light of the above observations we accept this appeal and direct that the irregular appointments and postings ordered during 27-4-1995 to 4-6-1996 may be regularized so that these orders may not affect the terms and conditions of the appellant adversely in future.
Respondent No, 2 should check up why the Establishment Division has been by-passed while making several postings and transfers within or beyond the service cadre of the appellant. The respondents should further ensure that the terms and conditions of the appellants service are settled properly and notifications are amended and the salary is to be released to the appellant in-time, with all connected benefits.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Parties be informed.
(Sd.)
MEMBER.
(Sd.)
MEMBER ' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---I fully agree with the proposed judgment of my learned brother Mr. Muhammad Raza Khan, Member, and would like to add that the Establishment Division may take suitable steps to implement this judgment as early as possible as the appellant is being .Deprived of her salary for a long period. She being an elderly lady, educationist and having best record of service is running from pillar to post for hey' legitimate claims of salary. I may further add that during the course of hearing, the appellant very graciously did not press the personal allegations against Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan, who was also arrayed as respondent by name in his personal capacity. Therefore, we refrain to give any findings on this issue.