muhammad tahir hanif

7/28/2019 Muhammad Tahir Hanif

1/6

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH,BAHAWALPUR

W.P. 2286/2013/BWP

Muhammad Tahir Haneef

-versus-

President, District Board of Management, Bahawalnagar etc.

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

REPORT/PARAWISE COMMENTS ON BEHALF OFRESPONDENTS

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


2/6

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 thepetitioner 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 administrativeand financial powers for over all execution/managementof the Institutes, and all other authorities/agenciesincluding Government are expressly precluded fromintervening 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


3/6

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


4/6

(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 hasbeen passed strictly in accordance with

rules/regulations.

ii. 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.


5/6

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


6/6

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.

RespondentsDated: /05/2013

muhammad tahir hanif

Documents