IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

W.P. 2286/2013/BWP

Muhammad Tahir Haneef -versusPresident, District Board of Management, Bahawalnagar etc.

(WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973)

REPORT/PARAWISE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS The Respondents most respectfully submit as under: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: 1. That neither the petitioner is a civil servant nor the terms and conditions of employees of Punjab Vocational Training Council, including the petitioner, are governed through statutory rules. The Honble Superior Courts of Pakistan have already passed judgments over the matter in view whereof, the instant petition is not maintainable and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 2. That transfer/posting being exigency of service should not always be treated as punishment rather the order passed by the Competent Authority should be complied with for good order and service discipline. The transfer/posting order impugned in this petition was purely on administrative grounds. Therefore, this order should have been complied with

in letter and spirit and the petitioner should have shown his bona fide towards the organization. 3. That even otherwise, the wedlock policy relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the circumstance that the petitioner is not civil servant whereas, the policy is applicable on the civil servants only. 4. That Punjab Vocational Training Council is a body corporate created under the Punjab Vocational Training Council Act, 1998. The Council does not recognize any association or union what to talk of APCA, not being an establishment as defined under the labor laws. The affiliation or association of any employee with any such association or union does not create any bar over the administrative or academic activities of the Council nor Council is bound by a commitment, if any, made by any government department because of its autonomous status conferred on it by Rule 3(xx) of the Punjab Vocational Training Council Rules, 1998 which is reproduced below: The Council shall have absolute/exclusive administrative and financial powers for over all execution/management of the Institutes, and all other authorities/agencies including Government are expressly precluded from intervening in such matters. Therefore, no benefit can be extracted out of this self-assumed status which is not protected under the law for the time being in force. REPORT/FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 1. That in January 2013, a complaint was filed by a female trainee of Vocational Training Institute, Fortabbas namely Ms. Maryam before the respondent No.2/Chairman, Punjab Vocational Training Council in which some serious allegations regarding

committing fraud in the form of duplication/multiplication of admissions etc. were raised (copy of application is attached as Annex-R/1). Respondent No.2 while taking cognizance of the matter, ordered a departmental probe and deputed audit team for the purpose, as is evident from the his order dated 12.01.2013 written on the said complaint. The audit team probed the matter and submitted its report according to which, the allegation of duplication of admissions was found correct (copy of report is attached as Annex-R/2). These courses are/were being run with the financial assistance of Punjab Skills Development Fund, Government of the Punjab and a loss of Rs.1,260,000 was caused to the Institute. Based on the above mentioned report, orders were passed by the respondent No.2 including the transfer/posting of the petitioner from Vocational Training Institute, Fortabbas to any other Institute. Respondent No.1 ordered the transfer of petitioner to VTI Mandi Sadiq Gunj (copy attached as Annex-R/3). It is also relevant to mention that both the Institutes fall within District Bahawalnagar. 2. That it is also relevant to mention the Principal of Vocational Training Institute, Fort Abbas namely Mr. Sajid Iqbal has also been proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and an inquiry is underway against him, vide order of inquiry dated 04.03.2013 (copy attached as Annex-R/4). 3. That it is also relevant to mention that earlier the petitioner was also proceeded against by the Competent Authority vide order dated: Nov 01, 2012 on the charge of illegal and unethical activities (copy of order of inquiry is attached as Annex-R/5). The competent authority vide order dated: Nov 07, 2012 terminated the petitioner (copy attached as Annex-R/6). However on the request of petitioner, appellate authority

(Managing Director PVTC) directed for de novo inquiry (copy attached as Annex-R/7). The inquiry on such charges is also pending against the petitioner. PARAWISE REPLY:
1. That the contents of this para are admitted as correct.

Complete addresses have not been mentioned.

2. A).

That the contents of this para are admitted to this extent

that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. 1775/2013 which was disposed off by this Honble Court vide order dated 26.03.2013 according to which, respondent No.1 was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. B). That in compliance of order dated 26.03.2013, hearing

was afforded to the petitioner on 09.04.2013 and after affording hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.1 decided the representation of the petitioner by rejecting the same. C). That the contents of this para are incorrect. REPLY TO GROUNDS i. Ground i is absolutely incorrect hence, denied. The order of transfer impugned in this petitioner has been ii. passed strictly in accordance with rules/regulations. Ground ii is absolutely incorrect hence, denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the impugned order is politically motivated or is a result of departmental prejudice as alleged by the petitioner.

iii.

That in reply to Ground iii, it is submitted that the impugned order was passed as a result of departmental probe in which, the allegations leveled were found correct and an inquiry is pending as has been mentioned above in detail.

iv.

Ground iv as stated is not admitted to be correct hence, denied. Detailed reply has been submitted above.

v.

Ground v is absolutely incorrect hence, denied. In compliance of order dated 26.03.2013 passed by this Honble Court in W.P. No.1775/2013, hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 09.04.2013 and thereafter, representation of the petitioner was decided strictly in accordance with law.

vi.

Ground vi is absolutely incorrect hence, denied. Hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 09.04.2013 and thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was decided strictly in accordance with rules/regulations.

vii.

Ground vii is absolutely incorrect hence, denied. The wedlock policy relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable on the petitioner as the petitioner is not a civil servant rather an employee of statutory corporation whose terms and conditions are not governed through any statutory rules. As regards the affiliation of the petitioner with any association, it is submitted that respondent organization does not recognize any such association in view of its

statutory status as conferred upon it under the PVTC Act, 1998 and PVTC Rules, 1998. viii. That in reply to this ground, it is submitted that the wedlock policy as relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable on him. Detailed reply has been submitted above.
3. That the contents of this para are as stated are not admitted to

be correct hence, denied. The detailed reply has been submitted above.
4. Formal.

PRAYER In view of the above, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that the instant Petition may very be graciously dismissed.

Respondents Dated: /05/2013