Ghulam Mustafa Bugti (Petitioner) VS S.E Operation Circle SEPCO Larkana & others (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT

COURT,

LARKANA

Constitutional Petition No. D- 399 of 2021.

Present:

Mr.

Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput.

Mr.

Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon.

Ghulam Mustafa Bugti. .................Petitioner.

Versus

Superintending Engineer SEPCO Larkana,

others. .............Respondents.

Mr.

Abdul RazzakJamali, Advocate for petitioner.

Date of hearing: 14.07.2021.

Date of Order: 14.07.2021.

ORDER

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J-. This constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, to the effect that the impugned Order No. SEL/ SEPCO/ Admn 23836-41 dated 30.6.2021 passed by respondent No.1 is illegal, malafide, unlawful, violation of law, without any justification and the same be annulled.

2.This petition is primarily directed to the validity of the posting / transfer order dated 30.06.2021 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Shaikh Zaid Sub-Division Larkana and posted at disposal of Executive Engineer Operation Division Sukkur Electric Power Company (SEPCO) Kandhkot. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that, basically the impugned transfer order in respect of the petitioner was issued by the Respondent-company in complete violation of Terms& Conditions of service of the petitioner.

3.The case of the petitioner is that, he is serving as Meter-Reader in SEPCO and was posted in Shaikh-Zaid Sub-Division of SEPCO Larkana, where he was performing his duties with devotion and dedication. Per petitionerhe is near to the retirement from service of SEPCO, as only 18 months are remaining to reach the age of superannuation; he averred that all of sudden the respondent No.1 without any rhyme and reason passed the office order dated 30.06.2021 whereby he has been transferred and posted at disposal of Executive Engineer Operation Division SEPCO Kandhkot, by leveling certain allegations of Misconduct.He further averred that the aforesaid order of his transfer/ posting is illegal, malafide and without justification, thus liable to be reversed.

4.Upon query by this Court as to how the instant petition is maintainable against the transfer and posting, which fall within the ambit of expression `terms and conditions` of service of public servant.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned transfer order as discussed supra was/ is tainted with malice, violativeof natural justice and malafide; that the respondents have twice transferred the petitioner without any sound reasoning and in any public exigency; that the respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner which are protected under Articles 4,9,18 and 25 of the Constitution; that the transfer and posting is to be made due to exigency of service and not otherwise. He added that petitioner is unable to travel to the place of posting as directed by the competent authority due to his precarious financial condition. He lastly prayed for allowing the instant petition.

6.We do not agree with the assertion of learned counsel for the petition on the aforesaid analogy. It is a well settled law that the transfer and posting falls within the ambit of expression “terms and conditions of service” and the petitioner cannot claim a vested right on a particular post at a particular place. Therefore, the forum chosen by the petitioner by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law. On the aforesaid proposition, the recent decision dated 16.1.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2019 is clear in its terms.

7.As per record, the service of the petitioner is not a tenure post to attract the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Anita Turab reported as PLD 2013 S.C. 01. Besides above, this is not a ground that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement, so he could not be transferred, for the simple reason the petitioner has been transferred from the subject post on account of “misconduct”/ involvement in theft of electricity, and it is for the respondent-company to look into the matter and deal with the disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated in this regard within a reasonable time.

8.Consequently, the instant petition being meritless stands dismissed in liminealong with the listed application(s). However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the proper forum under the law, if so advised.

Judge

Judge