Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Rashid vs Punjab Wakf Board Through Its Secretary ... on 30 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)101PLR415
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Abdul Rashid petitioner challenges in this writ petition order of his transfer. He is working as Rent Collector with Punjab Wakf Board at Amritsar. He joined there on July 2, 1990 and prior to that he had worked at different places. Vide order Annexure P-1, dated 7/8-10-1991, he was transferred to Rajpura. Challenge to his order is two fold; firstly, that as per rules framed he could be transferred only after 4 years of posting at a particular station; and secondly, that the order of transfer was actuated on account of malice on the part of respondent No. 3-Shri Arshad Ali Khan, Chief Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Board. The ground of malice is elaborated by saying that earlier one civil suit was conceded by respondent No. 3 relating to land worth crores of rupees. On the statement of respondent No. 3 in that suit, it was decreed on July 7, 1972 and when the petitioner was posted at Amritsar, it came to his notice and he reported. On that ground respondent No. 3 openly declared to get the petitioner transferred from Amritsar. Respondent No. 3 denied the allegations of mala fide. The Board has also contested the writ petition inter alia, alleging that the order of transfer was passed on the complaint made against the petitioner; that he was not whole-heartedly working with the result that there was slackness in the recovery of rents of the properties of the Wakf Board. He was also home-sick and used to attend the office hardly 4-5 days in a week. The order was passed on administrative grounds and in public interest.
2. When earlier arguments were addressed, it came to the notice that suit filed by the petitioner challenging the order of transfer was dismissed. However, we wanted to see the order of dismissal to know if any permission was sought to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Now copy of the order of withdrawal of suit has been produced which is Annexure P-9 with the replication. It shows that the suit was dismissed on October 22, 1991 on the statement of counsel for the plaintiff. No permission was sought or granted to file fresh suit on the same cause of action.
3. Annexure P-3 contains the rules relating to transfer of the employees of the Wakf Board. The relevant extract there from is reproduced for facility of reference as under :-
"2. Rent Collector/Clerks who have completed four years in the field /office would be transferred to different station/sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Any employee can be transferred at any place within the jurisdiction of the Punjab Wakf Board on administrative ground or in public interest at any time. Officials who have completed their stay at the station/office in accordance with the above rules may submit their options/choices for three stations in order of preference, stating the grounds for seeking the transfer to the desired stations.
Efforts will be made to accommodate the employees as far as possible but the Administrator would not be bound to accept the options given by the employee."
A perusal of the aforesaid rule does not indicate that any right was conferred on the employees to keep them at the place of posting minimum for a period of 4 years. What it contemplates is that after an employee had completed 4 years of service, he would be transferred to different stations. The rule further envisages the transfer of the employees even within the period of 4 years on administrative grounds or in public interest, i.e. at any time. Thus on the basis of the rule aforesaid it cannot be said that the order of transfer is in violation thereof.
4. During arguments copy of the order dated October 7, 1991 was produced which is also order of transfer including that of the petitioner. However, it was not mentioned therein that the order was passed on administrative grounds or in public interest, whereas the impugned order dated October 7/8, 1991 produced with the writ petition indicates that the order was passed on administrative grounds and in public interest. Assuming that two such orders were passed, that will not make any difference as ultimately it is the impugned order which is to be given effect to and not the order passed a day earlier.
5. From perusal of the reply filed it has transpired that report against the petitioner for his transfer on administrative ground was made on May 3, 1991-Annexure R-1. It was subsequently that a complaint was made in September, 1991 against respondent No. 3, on the basis of the nothing of the petitioner. It is on administrative reasons that transfer of the petitioner has been made on the basis of report dated May 3, 1991 Such an order does not leave any blemish or stigma on the petitioner. It was not passed by way of punishment. It is not necessary to further refer to the details of the mala fides alleged Suffice it to say that respondent No. 3 is only the member of the committee constituting 3 members who are to make recommendations of transfer. Ultimately, it is respondent No. 2, the Administrator, Punjab Wakf Board, who is competent authority to order transfers of the employees of the Wakf Board against whom no mala fides were alleged.
6. The petitioner earlier filed the suit challenging the order of transfer aforesaid which was withdrawn without seeking permission of the Court to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioner is debarred from challenging the order of transfer either by filing fresh suit or by filing the present writ petition. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that all the present parties to the writ petition were not made parties in the civil suit will not make any difference. If necessary parties were not impleaded, the plaint could be amended. The contention is repelled.
7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that criminal proceedings against respondent No. 3 were initiated which are pending; whereas according to the respondents the Wakf Board accepted that the property relating to which concession was made in Court did not belong to the Wakf Board. We restrain ourselves from commenting on these matters. Suffice it to say that the impugned order was not passed mala fide. Otherwise in the matter of transfers High Court is not expected to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. There will be no order as to costs.