' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 12-8-1999, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,1652 of 1998.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Punjab Police as a constable on 4-3-1980, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector on ad hoc basis on account of his outstanding performance for arresting a notorious proclaimed offender wanted in a murder case, with immediate effect by the Deputy Inspector-General, Lahore Range, Lahore vide order, dated 1- 6-1993. He was, however, reverted to the substantive rank of A.S.-I. By the S.S.P., Lahore. He filed a departmental appeal before the D.I.-G. Concerned, which was rejected through order, dated 10-3- 1997. He filed a revision petition before the Inspector-General of Police, which was also rejected vide order, dated 15-1-1998. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above orders he filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide judgment impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that once the petitioner had been promoted as Sub-Inspector, he could not have been reverted as A.S.-I. Without any show-cause notice, enquiry etc. That there is no concept of ad hoc promotion in the Police Rules, as such, the promotion of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularly made; that the learned Tribunal could not dismiss the petitioner's appeal without taking into consideration the ground taken therein; that the learned Tribunal did not consider the case in its proper perspective, therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.
4. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the material available on the file. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as S.-I. On ad hoc basis vide order of the D.I.-G. Lahore Range, Lahore dated 1-6-1993. He never filed any representation for being brought on promotion list-E or confirmation as S.-I. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner was involved in case F.I.R. No,273/94 registered under section 381, P.P.C. With Police Station Gulberg, Lahore, wherein the D.S.P. C.I.A. Lahore who conducted an enquiry in the case, found him guilty. He was dismissed from service on that reason, but was reinstated in service by the D.I.-G. Lahore Range, Lahore and the punishment of dismissal was converted into censure. The learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with each and every aspect of the case, and it would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- "(11) It had been clarified by the respondent-Department that the appellant was promoted to the rank of S.-I. On ad hoc basis on 1-6-1993, whereas the policy instructions of I.-G.P. Dated 4-5-1998 were issued after 5 years of the grant of promotion on ad hoc basis to the appellant. Since the appellant was not promoted on regular basis, provision of Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules would not be applicable in this case. It is further observed that the precedents referred to by the learned counsel are not fully applied to the case in hand as in the present case, the appellant was found involved in a criminal case which stigma is still attached with him as he has been censured in that case and the appellant has not preferred any appeal against this order. Since the promotion of the appellant was made on ad hoc basis and he was neither brought on promotion list-E nor confirmed as S.-I., the provision of Rules 13.18 is not applicable in this case."
5. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal is based upon the law laid down by this Court and there is no misreading or non-reading of the material available. Moreover, no substantial question of law of general public importance, as envisaged under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is involved in this case.
6. Resultantly, this petition is without merit and substance, which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.