M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------These six appeals by the Head Constables of Police are directed against the order of Superintendent of Police (Administration), Lahore Range, Lahore, dated 11-4-1975 and the order's of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, dated 6-1-1977 rejecting the representation of Muhammad Sharif Lodhi, and reverting the appellants from the officiating posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police to the substantive rank of Head Constable. Since all the appeals involve a common question of fact and law as such the same are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The appellants in these appeals joined the Police Department as Constables and after passing the Lower Training Course, they were promoted as Head Constables. They were confirmed as Head Constables in due course of events. All the appellants except Muhammad Sharif Lodhi, could' not be sent for Intermediate Course nor were they included in the List `D' maintained by the department, vide Punjab Police Rule 13.9 for promotion to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. However, one of the appellants, Muhammad Sharif Khan Lodhi, was sent for Intermediate Course at the Police Training School, Sihala, but was recalled due to Emergency caused by 1965 War. In the year 1966, the appellant could not participate in the course due to sickness and in 1967, he became overage. It appears that thereafter he was never sent up for training.
3. The appellants do not appear to have represented to the department. Since they had become overage for the training course, they were allowed officiating promotions in the year 1969 in pursuance of the policy laid down by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, in the year 1968.
According to the aforesaid policy, the unqualified and overage Head Constables could be granted officiating promotions in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The concession was purely temporary till such time the qualified Head Constables eligible for regular promotion as A. S. I.
Became available. Eventually, on 11-4-1975, they were reverted to their substantive ranks. The appellants represented against their reversions to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, but the same was rejected on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to the regular promotions. It may be noticed that the reversions of the appellants were preceded by a Show Cause Notice.
4. The impugned orders were assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the following grounds :-
(i) that the Superintendent of Police (Administration), Lahore Range, was not competent to pass the impugned order. According to the appellants their Appointing Authority, in the absence of any S. S. P. Incharge of the District, Lahore, was D. I.-G., Lahore Range, who alone was competent to pass to order of reversion ;
(ii) the appellants also relied upon entry in column No. 8 of Form No. 13.9 (3), Punjab Police Rules which purports to be a half-yearly report on the working of Head Constables on List `D' and A. S. Is.
On List `E', column 8 of the above required the date or exemption granted in passing the Intermediate School and Upper School examina--tions by the respective incumbents was to be specified. The case of the appellants was that their case was clearly covered by the Exemption as specified in column 8 in the Form prescribed under rule 13.9 (3) ;
(iii) In the alternative, it was contended that the appellants being senior were entitled to exemption and the department had acted in a diseriminating and mala fide manner while allowing their junior to officiate and reverting the appellants from the posts of A. S. Is. Of Police. The appellants also contended that it was for the department to send them for training and the failure of the department in this behalf, could not deprive them of their legitimate rights. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the decision of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 119 of 1958; decided on 10-2-1959 and decision in the Writ Petition No. 606 of 1974 decided on 3-12-1974, and the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 505/239 of 1974, decided on 3-2-1976 ; and
(iv) The appellants also made a grievance that they was were reverted after 6 to 7 years, were condemned unheard and the results of their representations were not conveyed to them. Thus there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
With these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants pressed for the acceptance of the appeals.
5. Mr. A. G. Humayun, the learned Government Pleader, pointed out that the impugned order was passed on 11-4-1975. Initially, the appellant, instead of filing departmental appeal, filed a Civil Suit which was dismissed by the civil Court in 1975 and even the Regular Second Appeal No. 207 of 1976 filed by them was also rejected by the Lahore High Court on 8-7-1976. Thus these appeals filed in February, 1977, by Muhammad Sharif Khan Lodhi and in August, 1977, by the rest of the appellants were grossly barred by time. He also submitted that the appellants never preferred any appeal to the prescribed authority i.e. Tile Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range. Thus the appeals filed to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, were no appeals in the eye of law. He relied upon In re : Ali Raza Shah Nagvi v. The Government of Sind (PLD 1977 SC 856), to support his contention that the appellant had failed to avail of the remedy of representation to the next higher authority and thus the appeal was also hit by the proviso (a) to section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. The learned Government. Pleader contended that the allegations of mala fide were absolutely unjustified inasmuch as that each case has to be decided on its own facts. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were granted accelerated promotions in consideration of their personal merits and the appellants have no locus stand! To question their promotions.
6. As regards the merits of the case, the learned Government Pleader contended that the appellants having been promoted on officiating basis had no right to regular promotion. They were admittedly unqualified and both the pleas of the appellants were repelled by the High Court in the judgment referred to above holding that officiating hands as such had no right to regular promotion. He also brought to our notice that the appellants though under their terms of appointment had no right to show cause had in fact been served with a show-cause notice (Annexure `B' to his grounds of appeal) and thus there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that Sharif Khan Lodhi was himself to blame inasmuch as he never agitated his grievance from 1965 till 1969 when he was promoted on officiating bais. Thus he allowed himself to be overage and infact he had since retired from service, no relief could be granted to him at this stage.
7. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that these appeals have no merit and are liable to be rejected. In the first instance, we find that the appellants have failed to account for the delay from July, 1976 up to August 1977 in the case of appellants other than Muhammad Sharif Khan Lodhi. The present appeals have been filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and the appellants were required to approach this Tribunal within a period of one moth, from the communication of the impug--ned orders. However, the appellant, in the first instance, filed a Civil Suit was rejected for want of jurisdiction. Even allowing the entire period spent before the civil Court still the appeals were barred by time. Thus the appeals are liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Similarly, the second plea advanced by the Government Pleader has also a considerable force. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case that the remedy of representation before authority as specified by law, should have been availed of by the appellant. In this case, the representation should have been filed before the D. I.-G. The representation to I.-G. Police, Punjab, was of no avail to the appellant. The following observations by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as it appeared at page S71 of PLD 1979 SC 856 fortify our conclusion above:- " . . . . Learned counsel then argued that his client again .Approached the Secretary against the order dated 23-6-1976, and also made representation to the Education Minister and the Martial Law authorities as pleaded by him in para. 4 of his appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, he could in this way be considered to have filed the appeal before the competent authority namely the Chief Secretary. This plea has no merit. The order to be appealed against was that of 23-6-1976 against which no appeal in time or in any competent forum viz. The Chief Secretary was filed and mere representations of the petitioner here and there could not be a substitute of the requisite appeal."
Since the appellants have failed to file any representation before the Autho--rity i.e. D. I.-G. And for which no explanation was offered before us, we find that the appellants have failed to comply with the requirements oil proviso (a) to section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act.
8. As regards the merits of the case, we find that the appellants conten--tions regarding mala fide and their claim that they should be deemed to have been regularly appointed in the rank of A. S. I.
Have been rejected by .The Lahore High Court after considering the merits of the case. We are in respectful agreement with the same and we hold accordingly. Even other--wise, we find that the appellants have failed to make out any case of mala fide on the part of the Departmental Authorities. Nothing was placed before us to substantiate the contentions aforesaid. We are also not inclined to accept the plea of the appellants that S. P. (Admn.), Lahore District, was not competent to pass the impugned order. The relevant pro--vision as printed at page 47 of the Manual of Delegation of Power Rules, 1958, vide item No. 9, in column 3, specified that "Superintendent of Police concerned" is the authority competent "to appoint, to suspend, reduce in rank, retire compulsorily, remove or dismiss an A. S. I. Of Police." In the case of Lahore District which was previously headed by an S. S. P., a D. I.-G. Has been appointed and a post of S. P. (Admn.) was created to look after the administration. Admittedly, the order has been passed by the S. P.
(Admn.). We find no difficulty in holding that S. P. (Admn.) is the S. P. Concerned as specified in column) in the relevant entry of the Delegation of Powers Rules. We, therefore, find no force in the contention of the appellants as to the competence of the S. P. (Admn.) to pass the impugned order.
The plea of the appellants as to the violation of principles of natural justice has no force inasmuch as they were served with a show-cause notice. As held by the High Court they were un--qualified and were holding the rank of A. S. I. In an officiating capacity. According to the provisions of section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, which forms part -of the terms and conditions of the appellant, they were liable to reversion to the lower post without any notice. Thus the reversion of the appellants had taken place in accordance with their terms and con--ditions. The appellants could not have any grievance in this behalf. The orders could not be deemed to be penal in nature.
9. For the reasons above, we find no force in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.