In the realm of public service, ensuring that government officers are treated fairly in terms of their postings and transfers is crucial. Recently, a significant legal case highlighted the plight of three Divisional Accounts Officers (DAOs) who were subjected to unfair transfers. These officers, stationed in different cities, faced transfers allegedly influenced by favouritism, illegal gratifications, and political pressures. This situation prompted them to file a Writ Petition to challenge these actions.
The DAOs in question had been protected under a “Policy for Transfers/Postings of Divisional Accounts Officers,” formulated in 2002 and strictly adhered to until recently. However, a Controller-General exploited his position, centralizing the authority for postings and transfers at the Headquarters level and initiating numerous transfers through associates, allegedly in return for bribes. This led to numerous complaints and issues of maladministration.
The Auditor-General of Pakistan intervened, addressing the Controller-General and reprimanding him for forcing DAOs to pay illegal gratifications for their transfers. The Auditor-General implied that the collected funds might be used for personal gains or to influence parliamentarians. Consequently, the Deputy CGA was directed to halt the implementation of transfer orders and impose a ban on further postings and transfers. Despite these directives, the Controller-General continued issuing transfer orders for the petitioners, compelling them to seek judicial intervention.
The petitioners based their Writ Petition on several grounds, including the illegality, discrimination, and mala fide nature of the respondent’s actions. They argued that the Controller-General violated the established transfer policy by transferring them prematurely, contrary to the policy’s minimum tenure requirements. They asserted that public functionaries must act according to the law and constitution, as established by Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The petitioners endured considerable suffering due to these unfair transfers, which were seen as capricious and discriminatory. The High Court’s intervention was sought to uphold their fundamental rights and challenge the Controller-General’s centralization of powers. Ultimately, the court accepted the Writ Petition, preventing the unfair transfers through a court order.
This case underscores the importance of seeking justice and protecting public officers from unjust transfers through legal recourse. It serves as a significant example of how government officers can challenge unfair practices and safeguard their rights.
Status: The Writ Petition was accepted, and the High Court intervened to prevent the unfair transfers of the Divisional Accounts Officers, protecting their rights and ensuring they were treated according to the law.
If you are facing similar issues, please feel free to consult us via email at [email protected].
Legal Services Offered by Josh and Mak International:
- Writ Petition Filing: We assist clients in filing Writ Petitions to prevent unfair transfers of government officers, drafting necessary legal documents, and representing clients in court.
- Legal Research and Analysis: Our firm conducts comprehensive legal research and analysis to support your case, examining relevant policies, regulations, and legal precedents related to government officer transfers.
- Challenging Malafide Actions: We challenge actions taken by senior officers or authorities that are alleged to be mala fide, patently illegal, discriminatory, or motivated by personal gains.
- Violation of Policy: We argue cases where transfers of government officers have been made in violation of formulated policies and regulations.
- Premature Transfers: Our firm challenges premature transfers of officers that do not comply with stipulated minimum tenure requirements.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: We advocate for the protection of our clients’ fundamental rights, ensuring they are treated in accordance with the law and constitution.
- High Court Representation: We represent clients before the High Court, advocating for their rights and seeking intervention in matters of unfair transfers.
- Speedy Remedies: We assist clients in seeking effective and speedy remedies for their grievances related to government officer transfers.
- Legal Consultation: We provide expert legal advice to clients facing similar situations, guiding them on the appropriate legal actions to take.
At Josh and Mak International, we specialize in providing legal solutions to government officers facing unfair transfers. Our dedicated team effectively represents clients in court, ensuring their rights are protected and justice is sought.
The cases mentioned below provide insightful perspectives on the challenges associated with unfair and illegal transfers of employees. They illustrate how different legal frameworks and judicial interpretations address the issues of transfers, appointments, and dismissals within various sectors.
2014 PLC (CS) 866 – Supreme Court Azad Kashmir In the case of Waheed Ahmed v. Chief Engineer Electricity, Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad, the court upheld the transfer of an employee from one division to another within the same department. The primary argument was that the department had not been bifurcated into independent entities but divided for administrative purposes. The Chief Engineer was found competent to make such transfers, and the employee had consented to the transfer. The ruling emphasized that administrative divisions within a department do not equate to the creation of independent departments, thus validating the transfer as legal and within the authority of the Chief Engineer.
2013 SCMR 1205 – Supreme Court In Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan, the Supreme Court reviewed the powers and functions of the Caretaker Government, particularly regarding the appointments, transfers, and postings of civil servants and officials in statutory bodies. The court held that the Caretaker Government should only manage day-to-day affairs and assist in organizing elections, without making substantive changes such as fresh appointments, promotions, or transfers. Transfers and appointments made by the Caretaker Government were declared void, reflecting a stringent view on the limitations of a transitional government’s powers. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in preventing abuse of power and ensuring appointments and transfers adhere to legal and constitutional norms.
2001 PLC 294 – National Industrial Relations Commission In Tariq Mahmood v. Superintending Engineer, Upper Jhelum Canal Circle, Jhelum, the case involved employees who alleged that their transfers were retaliatory actions due to their trade union activities, constituting unfair labour practice. The employees failed to provide specific evidence of such activities or previous instances of discrimination. The court ruled that transfers made due to service exigencies could not be challenged unless there was substantial proof of mala fide intent. This case highlights the importance of substantiating claims of unfair labour practices with concrete evidence.
1995 PLC 18 – Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh Liaquat Ali v. Muller and Phipps Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi dealt with the dismissal of employees who had instigated an illegal strike following their transfer orders. An independent inquiry found the employees guilty of misconduct, leading to their termination. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that transfers are an incidence of service, and employees cannot resort to illegal strikes to challenge administrative decisions. This ruling illustrates the judiciary’s support for maintaining operational discipline and lawful conduct in response to management decisions.
Conclusion These cases collectively illustrate that while the judiciary is vigilant in preventing abuses of power and ensuring adherence to legal and constitutional frameworks, it also requires substantial evidence to support claims of unfair practices. Employees challenging transfers must provide clear proof of mala fide intent or illegal actions. Conversely, employers must ensure that their actions are transparent, within the scope of their authority, and compliant with relevant policies and regulations. The balance between protecting employee rights and maintaining administrative efficiency is a critical theme in these judicial dec
