' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against order, dated 12-8-1999 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,868 of 1998.
2. The petitioner was promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police on 31-10-1986 and was confirmed as such with effect from 7-2-1990. He made a representation to the departmental authority for promotion and confirmation as Inspector of Police on the ground that a number of other Sub-Inspectors of Police, who were junior to him, had been so promoted and confirmed. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 27-4-1998 passed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab. The Appeal No,868 of 1998 thereagainst, filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment, dated 12-8-1999.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been confirmed as Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to judgment, dated 18-1-1997 of the Tribunal. Therefore, he could not be denied the promotion and confirmation as Inspector of Police only for the reason that he had been awarded as many as ten minor departmental penalties during the period from 1990 to 1997 or that his integrity was described as controversial in his A.C.R. For the year 1986. It was next argued that the Tribunal was empowerd to ignore the minor penalties of the petitioner for the purpose of his promotion and confirmation to the higher rank of Police Inspector. It was lastly submitted that major penalties awarded to the petitioner had already been modified into minor penalties.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner had already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and that he had not been found fit and suitable for promotion, after due consideration of his case, by departmental authorities.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that the petitioner was awarded seven penalties of censure during the years 1990 to 1997. He was also awarded fine of Rs,4,000 in the year 1996. Not only that by two separate orders of the departmental authority his approved service was forfeited for six months in 1996 and for one year in 1997. His integrity was also found to be controversial in his annual confidential report of 1986. He was, therefore, rightly not .Found fit and suitable for promotion and confirmation as Inspector of Police in terms of Police Rule 13.1 of the Punjab Police Rules. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the departmental authority and the Tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.