QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN, SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- The Appellant had been serving as Inspector in the F.I.A Being aggrieved by the Gazette Notification dated 21.2.2002 whereby Private Respondents Nos.
5 to 15 junior to him in Service were promoted to the post of Assistant Director (B-17) in the F.I.A.
Ignoring him and not considering his case for promotion in the meeting of the DPC although he was eligible for promotion in the meeting of the DPC although he was eligible for promotion, hence he made a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan but his representation was withheld as communicated to him vide endorsement dated 01.07.2002 He therefore, filed this Appeal on 30.07.2002 before the Tribunal under section 4 read with Section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act praying as under: "The respondents Nos. 12 & 2 above may be directed to consider the name of the appellant for promotion from the post of Inspector (BS-16) to that of Assistant Director (BS-17) from the date when juniors to the appellant have been promoted as Assistant Director.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record including Para wise Comments filed on behalf of the Respondents.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the promotion of the Appellant had been withheld for want of ACRs and due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant before this Tribunal but the Appellant had already submitted his ACRs subsequently and he was also exonerated by the Tribunal in the disciplinary proceedings against him in Appeal No. 100(K)
(CS)/2002 lllahi Bux Tunio v. The Secretary Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and another vide Judgment dated 10.5.2006, in accordance whereof, the Appeal of the Appellant was accepted and major penalty of reduction to two lower stages in time scale was set aside.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in view of such position, the Respondents be directed to consider the case of the Appellant for promotion in the next DFC meeting as the Appellant was eligible for promotion.
5. So far as withholding of promotion is concerned, the learned State Counsel conceded that the promotion of the Appellant was withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, against the Appellant which had ended in favour of the Appellant as argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. On our query the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Respondents had not filed any Appeal against the said Judgment of the Tribunal. The learned State Counsel did not say if any Appeal was filed by the Respondents against the said judgment.
6. Since the Appellant is said to have submitted the requisite ACRs as stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant had ended in his favour and no other disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were said to have been pending against him, there' should be no impediment in considering his case for promotion now.
7. We therefore, direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Appellant for his promotion to next higher rank if he is otherwise eligible for promotion. Accordingly with no order as to costs.
8. Copies of this Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule-21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.