FST puts off Lahore CCPO’s transfer order

The Federal Service Tribunal (FST), Islamabad on Friday put off the suspension and transfer order of Lahore Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Ghulam Mahmood Dogar.

It directed the Establishment Division to decide the Lahore police chief’s petition against his transfer order first.

Tribunal members, Asim Akram and Mushtaq Jadoon, issued a three-page written decision on the CCPO’s plea.

The tribunal stopped the implementation of Dogar's suspension notification.

It also put off the order to the CCPO to report to the Establishment Division from the province.

“The counsel for the appellant contended that the transfer order is in violation of Rule 21 of the Rules of Business as upheld by the apex court in Zahid Akhtar v Govt, of Punjab (PLD 1995 SC 530). It is settled law that [the] operation of the transfer order remains suspended till decision upon the representation against the said order,” the verdict read.

The tribunal order further read: "[The] right of representation against a transfer order is provided under Section 22 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973. To consider the suspension of [a] transfer order we consider it appropriate to evaluate the Transfer Policy, 1980 of Punjab, relevant portion of which reads as under:  ‘Government servants under transfer may represent against the order and the representation should be decided by the authority next above transferring (except where the transfer has been ordered by the governor) expeditiously as far as possible, within one month officer who submits representations for cancellation or holding in abeyance of transfer order on compassionate grounds may be allowed to stay back till their representation or decided and their relievers should be informed simultaneously.”

The judgment added: “The Transfer Policy of Punjab provides that where an officer submits a representation against his transfer order he may be kept at his initial station or in other words the transfer order may be suspended till [the] decision upon his representation, which should be decided within one month. Representation against the transfer order is a right and as per the principle ‘ubi jus ibi remedium' (where there is a right there is a remedy) and if operation of the transfer order is not suspended, during representation against the same, [the] spirit of relief would perish.”

The judgment further read that the application of the CCPO before the tribunal was premature.

“An appeal can be preferred before the tribunal under Section 4 of The Service Tribunal Act, 1973 (Act). Section 4 of the Act provides a period of 90 days for decision of the departmental representation. After [a] decision on [the] departmental representation by the competent authority or failure to respond, another 30 days [were] provided to approach the tribunal in a service appeal. The appeal at hand is premature in terms thereof as the same has been filed before the expiry of the statutory period,” the judgment read.

It added that the Establishment Division should first decide on the CCPO’s application against his transfer order and then the applicant could appeal.