1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).---In this case the appellant Jamshed Raza while posted as Sub-Inspector Incharge Police Post, Lytton Road, Lahore while patrolling on the night intervening the 14th and 15th of March, 1977 at about 11.00 p. m. Found Major Muhammad Shaukat Anwar shouting in a drunken state near "Bhatti Tikka Shop" near Chowk Qartaba, Mozang Chungi, Lahore, Major Muhammad Shaukat Anwar stopped the appellant and addressed him in a contemptuous tone. It is alleged that the appellant, who was also accompanied by Mr. Muhammad Jamil, Constable No. 2015 used abusive language against Major Muhammad Shaukat Anwar and even misbehaved with other Military Officers, viz. Capt. Altaf, Capt. Navid Akbar, Second It. Ali Shah and Capt. Asif who had also gathered near the scene. It was also alleged that the appellant, through Muhammad Jamil, Constable, summoned Police re-enforcement from Police Post Lytton Road and some Constables in plain clothes with Inspector came their and brought the Army Officers to the aforesaid Police Post and used derogatory language towards the Military Officers. In the meantime, Army Troops in Truck and a Jeep also came to the Police Post and rescued their officers from the Police custody. The incident was also entered by the appellant in the Daily Diary vide Entry No. 15 of 15-3-1977 at the Police Post, Lytton Road, Lahore, by the appellant. The matter was also reported to the higher Police authorities on 15-3-1977 through the Inspector Incharge, Police Station, Mozang, Lahore. It appears that the complaint was also lodged by the Military Officers to the Police authorities in consequence of which the appellant was immediately suspended from service and on 25-9-1977 the Inspector. General of Police, Punjab, directed the Superintendent of Police, City Circle. Lahore that the appellant be charge-sheeted for the alleged misconduct and Departmental proceedings be taken against him and after the completion of the departmental proceedings, the findings be submitted to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, by 29-9-1977. The D. I.-G. Lahore Range, on 8-10-1977, pending departmental proceedings, ordered the removal of the name of appellant from promotion list E and also ordered to revert him from the rank of Sub- Inspector of Police, in compliance to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab's letter dated 25-9- 1977. However, the appellant was reinstated, with effect from the same date in the capacity of A. S. I.
2. Of Police. The appellant challenged his reversion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police before the completion of the proceedings against him, before this Tribunal, by this appeal filed on 16-5- 1978. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 9-7-1978 inter alia on the ground that the reversion had been ordered without complying with the requirements of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975.
3. Today the appellant has produced before us the findings in enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, City Circle, Lahore, on 15-7-1978, which is to the following effect: "I have studied his explanation minutely and heard the A. S. I. Personally. His reversion from the rank of Sub-Inspector to the present rank is also in connection with the same enquiry. Anyhow, in view of the lack of evidence, I exonerate the A. S. I. Of the charges."
4. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police Lahore Range, vide his order dated 9-9-1978, finally passed the following order: "Since the representations has been exonerated of all the allegations that became the cause of his reversion, his name is hereby re-admitted to Promotion List `E' w. e. f. 10-1-1974 the date and in the position on the seniority list of A. S. Is. At which it was first admitted along with others of his batch on 10-1-1974. He is also approved for promo--tion to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector from the date of reversion, i. e. 8-10-1978. Since he did not perform the duties of a Sub-Inspector during this period, he would naturally not get the benefit of pay in the higher rank."
5. The appellant is now aggrieved of the last portion of the order which purported to repromote him from 8-10-1978 and also by the denial of pay in the rank of Sub-Inspector for the reversion period.
6. The appellant submitted that since he was exonerated of all the charges it was but logical that he should have been treated as Sub-Inspector as originally promoted and was also entitled to confirmation after the expiry of the prescribed probation period which in the instant case was due to expire on 17-11-1977. He also relied upon the observations made by the S. P. City as Enquiry Officer and the D. I,-G., Lahore as competent authority that his reversion was due to the allegation of misconduct which was the subject-matter of Enquiry. He submitted that the restoration of status quo ante as if there had been no reversion was the logical consequence of the findings above. The learned Government Pleader has nothing to say against the above. The Department did not dispute the fact that the appellant had been exonerated completely of all charges.
7. After hearing both the parties, we are plainly of the view that the portion of the order impugned by the appellant before us is evidently un--tenable and has no basis to sustain. We fail to see as to how, after exonera--tion of the appellant, restoring his name to Promotion List "E" w. e. f. 10-1-1474 his entitlement to promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police and hi original seniority, as per his partial promotion iv. e. f. 17-11-1975 and consequential confirmation on successful completion of 2 years service could b A denied to him, The order of D. I.-G. Of Police re-fixing the date of promotion of the appellant from 8-10-1977 appears to be completely illegal and devoid) of any conceivable basis.
8. We cannot maintain the same. We accordingly accept this appeal with costs and direct that appellant be deemed to have never been reverted and he, is entitled to all the service benefits, as if there had been no reversion order at all and he had to be treated to have been promoted on probation to the post of S. I. Of Police with effect from 17-11-1915. Similarly his claim to salary as Sub- Inspector for the reversion period is also irresistible as for no fault of his he was not allowed to function as such. Consequently the appeal succeeds to the extent and in the manner indicated above.
9. Announced in the presence of the parties on 27-9-1978.