' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition has been directed against the judgment, dated 5- 4-2002 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby service appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his representation by the competent authority, was dismissed.
2. The representation filed by the petitioner against the punishment of warning and censure and penalty of one year service twice during the period from 1986 to 1989, was dismissed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Lahore vide order, dated 7-7-1993 which remained unchallenged. Subsequently, the petitioner qualified the upper class course in 1994 and was admitted to list "E" and was also promoted as Sub-Inspector in 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh departmental representation seeking his confirmation in the rank of A.S.-I., with inclusion of his name in list "E" w,e,f, 7-4-1985 and promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector, w,e,f, 5-7-1987 on the ground that the punishment of warning, censure and forfeiture of service for a specified period, would not be a valid ground to deprive him from the right of confirmation and promotion with effect from the date on which he was initially confirmed and promoted. This representation was dismissed by the D.I.-G. Police, Faisalabad Range vide order, dated 20-2-1998 on the following grounds:--
(a) the official was admitted to list 'E' and promoted to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 24-7-1986 on probation for a period of two years but subsequently, on removal of his name from list "E" on account of three punishments of warnings awarded to him during the period of probation, he was reverted to the rank of A.S.-I. w,e,f, 5-4-1987.
(b) The official was awarded two punishments of censure, and two penalties of forfeiture of one year service during 1988 and 1989.
(c) The official also earned adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 1987 and the penalty of censure in 1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the punishments of warnings and censure referred to above, awarded to the petitioner, he subsequently, having been admitted to list "E", would be entitled for promotion and confirmation with effect from 5-4-1987 on which date he was initially promoted. The learned counsel added that under the Police Rules, the penalties of censure and warnings are not considered the punishment of the nature which would effect the seniority of the police official and deprive him from his legitimate right of promotion and confirmation as per his entitlement. In nutshell, the argument of the learned counsel was that the petitioner was entitled for confirmation in the rank of S.-I. w,e,f, 5-4-1987 whereas he was confirmed w,e,f, 7-3-1995 and was made junior to his juniors in the service.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner having not challenged the order, dated 7-7-1993 by virtue of which the representation filed by him against the punishment awarded to him was dismissed by Additional Inspector-General Police, Lahore, before the appropriate forum, could not competently maintain a second representation on the same subject for the same relief which was earlier refused, therefore, the dismissal of the subsequent representation by the Deputy Inspector-General Police, vide order, dated 20-2-1998 was unexceptional and the appeal preferred by him against this order would be treated as an appeal against the order, dated 7-7-1993 by virtue of which the original representation was rejected and consequently, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by time. In support of the above argument, he has placed reliance on Nazakat Ali v. WAPDA 2004 PLC (C.S.)
163, Abdul Basit Khan v. Chief Minister, Sindh 2001 PLC (C.S.) 477 and Sirajun Munira v. Pakistan 1998 SCMR 785.
5. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, find that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, vide order, dated 7-7-1993 and the second representation on the same subject would not give .Fresh life to the said order, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General in the subsequent representation, would be in reiteration of the earlier order passed by the Additional Inspector- General and would neither revive the past and closed transaction nor create fresh cause of action for the purpose of limitation for filing appeal before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us any law under which the appeal before the Service Tribunal in such circumstances, could be treated within limitation. We, having found no merit in this petition, would take no exception to the impugned judgment and dismiss this petition. Leave is refused.