PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has rejected the petition of former director of the anti-corruption establishment Sadeeq Anjum against his return to the parent department by the provincial government after a service of around eight years in the ACE.
A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Inamullah Khan ruled that a civil servant sent on deputation acquired no vested right to continue to serve in the borrowing department indefinitely.
The petitioner had challenged the order of KOP chief secretary of July 8, 2026, whereby he had been repatriated from the ACE to the prosecution directorate, his parent department. He sought directives of the court for the government to allow the petitioner to continue functioning as ACE’s director until expiry of his lawful tenure or until decision was taken on his pending representation seeking permanent absorption in the ACE.
The petitioner also sought directives for the respondents including the chief secretary to decide his representation within a stipulated time by means of a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing.
Rules ‘no vested right of petitioner to continue serving in borrowing department indefinitely’
His counsel said his client was initially appointed as assistant public prosecutor (BS-17) in the Prosecution Directorate, Home and Tribal Affairs Department on Nov 3, 2016, through a competitive selection process.
He added that subsequent to the petitioner’s initial posting, his services were placed on deputation at the disposal of the Directorate of ACE as a prosecutor (BS-17) on Sep 19, 2018 for a period of three years, which was extended from time to time by the competent authority.
“During his tenure in ACE, the petitioner earned promotion to the rank of deputy public prosecutor (BS-18) in his parent department, and correspondingly, his services were retained in ACE as deputy public prosecutor. Through a notification on Aug 6, 2024, the competent authority entrusted the petitioner with operational responsibilities of the post of Director ACE under Section 10 of the KP Civil Servants Act, 1973,” he said.
The counsel said that the petitioner had initiated various organizational restructuring measures, prepared draft service rules and supervised sensitive inquiries and investigations involving public exchequer losses and high-profile public functionaries.
He claimed that discharging his duties independently, the petitioner refused to accede to extraneous directives regarding cancellation or closure of certain criminal proceedings and inquiries, which had annoyed certain quarters.
The bench, in its eight-page detailed judgement, observed that perusal of record revealed that the position occupied by petitioner in the ACE was purely on deputation from his parent department (Home and Tribal Affairs Department/Prosecution Directorate).
“It is settled principle of service jurisprudence, recognized consistently by superior courts of the country, that deputation is by its very nature a temporary arrangement between the borrowing and the lending department, and a civil servant sent on deputation acquires no vested right to continue indefinitely in the borrowing department,” it declared.
The court added that the lending department retained an inherent and unfettered prerogative to call back its officer at any time it considered necessary or expedient and ordinarily such repatriation, being a normal administrative incident of the deputation arrangement rather than a punitive or stigmatic action, didn’t require the recording of elaborate reasons or observance of the principles of natural justice in the manner applicable to disciplinary proceedings or reduction in rank.
It declared that the repeated extension of petitioner’s deputation and even his promotion during its currency didn’t convert a deputation into a permanent absorption nor did they extinguish the employer’s discretion to repatriate.
“So far as representation filed by petitioner for seeking permanent absorption against an available vacant BS-18 post in the Anti-Corruption Establishment is concerned, the same has been pending before the worthy Chief Secretary for a considerable time, which is a matter distinct from the question of continued posting as Director. In light of what has been discussed above, this Court is of considered view that petitioner has not been able to make out a case for suspension or setting aside of impugned repatriation order dated 08 .07, 2026, therefore, instant writ petition is dismissed in limine,” it declared.
Published in Dawn, July 25th, 2026
