' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 7-11-2004, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No.238(R)CS of 2004.
2. The respondent Abdul Shakoor Memon was originally on deputation with the F.I.A. On 16-3-1986.
He was regularly absorbed in F.I.A. As Inspector (Customs) on 21-12-1989. He was promoted as Assistant Director (Customs) (BS-17) on 4-8-1994. A show-cause notice for disciplinary proceedings was issued against him. Therefore, his promotion as Deputy Director (Customs) in BS- 18 was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee. However, the petitioner Muhammad Malik, who was otherwise junior to him, was promoted as Deputy Director (Customs) in BS-18 vide Notification dated 15-12-1998. The appeal of the respondent thereagainst was disposed of by the Tribunal on 12-9-2002 with the direction to the Departmental Authorities to place his promotion case before the appropriate committee for consideration. As a result of disciplinary proceedings a minor penalty of withholding his promotion for a period of one year was imposed which decision was set aside by the Tribunal, by judgment, dated 12-9-2002, in Appeal .No.760(K) of 1999. The case of his promotion was again deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioner Sarfraz Ali Khan, who was also junior to him, was promoted in BS-18. Therefore, the respondent filed Appeal No.238(R)CS of 2004 which was accepted by the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 7-11-2004. Consequently,, the Tribunal ordered the promotion of the respondent as Deputy Director, F.I.A. In BS-18 with effect from 15-12-1998 with all consequential benefits. Hence these petitions by the private petitioners and the Department for grant of leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not competent to straightaway pass an order of promotion of the respondent Abdul Shakoor Memon in BS-18 with effect from-15-12-1998 and that at the most his case could be referred again to the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of promotion or otherwise in accordance with law.
4. At this stage the learned counsel for the caveator submitted that the respondent would have no objection if his case was remanded to the Departmental Authority for consideration of his promotion in BS-18 in ' accordance with law, rules and instructions on the subject as the said respondent had only been deferred and not superseded.
5. We are also inclined to take the view that the Tribunal was not justified, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to order the promotion of the respondent Abdul Shakoor Memon and that his case for promotion was required to be remanded to the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration in accordance with law, rules and instructions. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal needs to be modified.
6. In this view of the matter, these petitions are converted into appeals and the same are partly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is modified with the direction that the competent Departmental Authority shall consider and decide afresh the case of promotion of the respondent as Deputy Director (Customs) (BS-18), F.I.A., in accordance with law, rules and instructions within a period of two months under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.