' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, C.J.---This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 7-1-2003, whertby Service Appeal No,299 of 2001 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts, precisely stated, are that the appellant joinedpolice service as a Constable Driver in Reserve Police on 12-12-1994. He was promoted as Head Constable on 5-11-1995 and then as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 7-2-1996 on the basis of his efficiency and dedication to the duty.
The department prepared a final seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Reserve Police, vide Annexure B', and the appellant has been entered in this seniority list at Serial No,38. After that the appellant was awarded selection grade B-11. The order of promotion of appellant as Assistant Sub- Inspector and the seniority list wherein the appellant was entered at Serial No,38 were challenged by none. The appellant was performing his duties as Assistant Sub-Inspector honestly and efficiently and after more than two and a half years, he was reverted back to the post of Constable Driver on 11-11-1999 without any substantial reason and justification. The appellant filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of the appellant on 25-7- 2000 and order of promotion of appellant as Assistant Sub-Inspector was restored. The respondents filed an appeal against the aforesaidjudgment of the Service Tribunal before the Supreme Court and this Court vide its judgment dated 19-1-2001 dismissed the appeal of the department. However, this Court observed that the Department may proceed against the appellant, if so advised, afresh according to law. The department again charge-sheeted the appellant and an inquiry was held. The appellant was heard personally and thereafter he was again reverted back to the post of Constable Driver vide Order Book No, 443 dated 30-6-2001.
Against this order the appellant filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which vide its judgment dated 7-1-2003 dismissed the appeal. It is the aforesaid judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 7- 1-2003 which is the subject-matter of present appeal.
3. Kh. Muhammad Nasim the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the impugned judgment recorded by the Service Tribunal is bad in law and as such is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel contended that only two grounds were taken into consideration by the Service Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the appellant which are as follows:- "(i) After the appointment of the appellant he was promoted rapidly firstly to the post of Head Constable and lastly to the post of A.S.I. Within the probationary period, which was against the law and without jurisdiction; and
(ii) inthe light of decision of the Supreme Court, the department has adopted proper procedure and after charge-sheeting him and giving him an opportunity of being heard he was rightly reverted back and no mistake has been done by doing so."
' The learned counsel strenuously argued that in the charge-sheet the charges levelled against the appellant were to the following effect:-- (i). It was alleged against the appellant that he was appointed as Constable on 28-12-1994. Under the relevant rules the maximum age for induction in the police service was 25 years but he, at the time of induction, was of the age of 28 years, 8 months and 2 days. The appellant did not get any relaxation in the age, as such he was inducted in the service against the relevant rules;
(ii) the appellant before his induction in the police service was accused of committing offences under sections 353' and 186 Penal Code and Challan No,103/91 was lodged against him. It was also alleged that there was yet another challan pending against the appellant in Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Muzaffarabad for allegedly committing the offences under sections 341 Penal Code and 15 I.P.L. , but at the time of induction in service, he concealed this fact whereas under ' Chapters 12.14 and 12.18 of the Police Service Rules, the appellant was not eligible to be inducted in service on account of being involved in criminal cases.
(iii) after induction in service, the period of three years is probationary and during this period no one can be promoted but the appellant in connivance with the high officials of the department within less than a period of one year was promoted as Head Constable on 5-11-1995. During this period the appellant neither passed the course of recruitment nor showed any departmental efficiency, as such in collusion with the high officials of the department, he got promotion as Head Constable;
(iv) the appellant got promotion on 7-2-1996 as Assistant Sub-Inspector in connivance with the high officials of the police department, whereas he did not pass any course of recruitment which is essential for promotion and thus, he got rapid promotion in a very short period; and
(v) according to the department the appellant produced a certificate which is part of Order Book No,47 dated 22-8-1996 which shows that the appellant passed the course of his recruitment as an educated person. It was alleged that the certificate appears to be fictitious and fake and if he had any proof to show that the same is valid, he was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer otherwise it was directed that a case against him shall be registered for cheating the department.
' On the basis of above stated allegations, the appellant submitted his reply in which he denied the allegations and claimed that the charges levelled against him were fictitious and bogus; however, the department reverted him back as Constable Driver on 11-11-1999. His appeal before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed without any justifiable reason. According to the learned counsel for the appellant all the allegations levelled against the appellant are baseless and false. The learned counsel argued that vide Standing Order No,1/89 dated 6-12-1998, Annexure `H', the maximum age for induction in police service as Constable Driver was fixed as 30 years. Therefore the first allegation against the appellant that he was illegally inducted in service at the age of 28 years and some months whereas the age for induction in police service according to the Police Rules was 25 years, is misconceived and incorrect. In the same way, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the second allegation is also incorrect that at the time when the appellant was inducted in police service, he was involved in some criminal cases, the challans of which were pending against him but this fact was concealed by him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant no case was pending against his client when he applied for his induction as Constable Driver. The learned counsel further argued that much before the induction in police service in two cases he was honourably acquitted by the Court after the trial vide judgments dated 12-7-1995 and 5-9-1994 which are part of the file as Annexures 'G' and `G/1'
4. So far as the third allegation is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that on the basis of his efficiency and excellent work, the Competent Authority promoted him. No order of promotion was passed at the behest of the appellant or on the basis of his application rather the promotion was given to him on the basis of his excellent performance. With regard to fourth allegation it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was given rapid promotion on the basis of his efficiency and dedication to his duty. The appellant was not promoted on his own request or on his application. According to the learned counsel the high officials of the department, due to excellent performance of the appellant, promoted him. As regards the last allegation that the appellant has not passed the recruitment course, the same has been controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant by arguing that the appellant has qualified P.T.S. Recruitee course, thus, this allegation is also false. The learned counsel for the appellant showed us the original certificate of police training, the copy of which is annexed with his concise statement as Annexure TB', which shows positively that the appellant has undergone the course of recruitment. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that as all the allegations against the appellant have been proved false, therefore, by accepting this appeal, the reversion order of the appellant, being without jurisdiction, may be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions placed reliance on the cases reported as Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413, Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and another PLD 1994 Lahore 3 and Syed Imdad Ali Shah and 59 others v. Azad Government and 8 others . 2003 SCMR 95.
5. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Raza Ali Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, defended the impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal and contended that as the appellant is the beneficiary of rapid promotion orders, therefore, his revision order was correctly passed by the S.P. (Reserve) Muzaffarabad. The learned counsel submitted that in connivance with the high officials of the department, the appellant had been getting rapid promotions against the relevant rules, therefore, the order of his reversion was not suffering from any illegality or infirmity. The learned counsel for the respondent fully defended the impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal. He in support of his contentions placed reliance on Chapter XII, Rules 12.14 and 12.18 of the Police Service Rules, 1934.
6. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. From the record it appears that the Inspector-General of Police promoted the appellant as Assistant Sub-Inspector B-9 on the recommendations of Superintendent of Police (Reserve) and A.I.G. Police (Legal) C.P.O., on 7-2-1996. In the recommendations of S.P. (Reserve) and particularly in the recommendations of A.I.G. (Legal), it is clearly stated that the appellant is an efficient and dutiful officer and out of the whole lot he deserves promotion. On the basis of these recommendations the Inspector General of Police on 7- 2-1996 promoted the appellant as Assistant Sub-Inspector. The promotion order of the appellant and subsequently the seniority list of A.S.-Is. Annexure '13', in which the appellant was shown at serial No,38, were not challenged by any of the officers of the Police Department. So far as the allegations levelled against the appellant are concerned, the same stand refuted from the record.
The learned counsel for the appellant has very ably proved that the allegations against the appellant are fake and fictitious. So far as the rapid promotion orders of the appellant are concerned, it seems to be that the same have been made due to his efficiency and dedication to his duty and thus, he was promoted within a few years. If the rapid promotibn of appellant was against the rules, then it was the bounden duty of the Police Department to proceed against those high officials such as S.P. (Reserve) Muzaffarabad and A.I.G. Police (Legal) of the relevant time. It is very easy to say that the rapid promotion orders have been obtained by the appellant in connivance with the high officials of the department, but the same is difficult to prove. The Courts of law have to decide the cases strictly in accordance with the law and if some allegations against somebody stand proved, then definitely the action should have been taken but in absence of proof, no action could be taken. While making the rapid promotions of the appellant, nothing has been brought on the record by the department to show that his promotions were made on his representation or on his application. If the high officials of the Police Department have committed lapses by making rapid promotions of the appellant, its punishment cannot be given to the appellant. In a case reported as Secretary to Government, N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413 it was observed as follows:-- "It is disturbing to note that in this case petitioner No,2 had himself been guilty of making irregular appointment on what has been described "purely temporary basis". The petitioners have now turned around and terminated his services due to irregularity and violation of rule 10(2) ibid. The premise, to say the least, is utterly untenable. The case of the petitioners was not that the respondent lacked requisite qualification. The petitioners themselves appointed him on temporary basis in violation of the rules for reasons best known to them. Now they cannot be allowed to take benefit of their lapses in order to terminate the services of the respondent merely because they have themselves committed irregularity in violating the procedure governing the appointment. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is not shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in reinstating the respondent."
' In another case reported as Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and another PLD 1994 Lahore 3 it was observed that no one can suffer on account of the act of the Authority, who had to pass an order and who had taken some action which action was illegal or without lawful authority. A person who had been wronged on account of such action of the Authority was entitled to be restored to the same position as of right to the maximum possible extent, which he would have occupied for the wrongful act of the Authority.
' Similarly in a case reported as Syed Imdad Ali Shah and 59 others v. Azad Government and 8 others 2003 SCR 95 it was observed by this Court 'that it is an admitted fact that all the untrained candidates were deputed for training by the Education Department itself. If any candidate was deputed at a later stage, his service should have also been protected by the High Court as all the State Subjects are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law.
7. Now we may advert to the Police Service Rules, 1934, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. Rule 12.14(1) of the aforesaid Rules reads as under:-- "12.14 (1) Recruits shall be of good character and great care shall be taken in selecting men of a type suitable for police service from candidates presenting themselves for enrolment."
' Similarly rule 12.18 (1) of the aforesaid Rules reads in the following manner:-- "12.18 (1) The character and suitability for enrolment of every recruit shall be ascertained by a reference to the Lambardar of the village or ward member of the town of which the recruit is a resident. A search slip shall also be sent to the Finger Print Bureau in order to establish his freedom or otherwise from conviction. Such Lambardar or ward members shall, if the recruit is of good character, furnish a certificate to that effect which shall be verified and attested by the Sub- Inspector, incharge of the local police station. The Sub-Inspector shall also complete the information required by form."
' The bare reading of above stated ruled shows that it is for the selection authorities who make selection or promotion, it has no nexus with the appellant, as such the same have no application in the instant case. Conversely the appellant was given rapid promotions due to his efficiency and excellent work as recommended by the high officials of the Police Department.
8. We may point out that the grounds made basis by the Service Tribunal for dismissing the service appeal of the appellant are patently flimsy and artificial, as such have no legs to stand upon.
9. In the light of what has been stated above, by accepting the appeal, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 7-1-2003 and restore back the appellant to his post of A.S.I. With all the back-benefits. The appeal thus stands accepted with costs.