Justice (R) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman.--The appellant entered Government service in 1981 and was thereafter inducted in the District Management Group. He performed his duties in various capacities in the field as well as in the Civil Secretariat and was promoted to BS-19 in June 1994 in due course. The appellant successfully completed the NIPA course in 1994-95 and fulfilled other conditions of eligibility for consideration for promotion to BS-20.
2. The appellant was however, placed under suspension on 08.11.1999 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him on' 19.02.2000. Upon finalization of the inquiry proceedings the appellant was exonerated of the charges vide inquiry report dated 12.05.2000. The appellant was subjected to another departmental inquiry which also culminated in the exoneration of the appellant vide report of the Enquiry Officer dated 16.07.2000.
3. Thereafter, the appellant was tried by the Accountability Court No, 1, Quetta in Reference No, 28/2000. Vide judgment dated 26.07.2001, the appellant was not found guilty of any offence and was acquitted of the charges. The appellant successfully defended himself in another NAB Reference No, 10 of 2000 and was also acquitted vide judgment dated 25.10.2001 passed by the Accountability Court No, 1, Quetta. Finally the appellant vide Notification dated 30.03.2002 was reinstated in service w,e,f, 01.12.2001 and his period of suspension from 08.11.1999 to 30.11.2001 was treated as on duty as per FR-54(a).
4. During the pendency of the above departmental proceedings and the proceedings before the Accountability Court No, 1, Quetta, two meetings of the Central Selection Board were held on 24.06.2000 and 26.04.2001 respectively. As per record the appellant appeared at SI. No, 42 in the panel of BS-19 officers in the meeting of 24.06.2000 and was not considered for promotion to BS-20 for want of vacancy as per his seniority position. In the meeting of the CSB held on 26.04.2001, the appellant was recommended for deferment due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him.
5. The appellant was again considered by the CSB on 22.06.2002 but on this occasion he was superseded and his juniors were promoted. The appellant preferred a departmental representation dated 08.10.2002 which remained unsactioned. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 14.02.2003.
6. During the pendency of this appeal the CSB once again ' considered the case of promotion of the appellant in its meeting held on 3rd/4th July 2003 and the appellant was finally cleared for promotion to BS-20 w,e,f, 18.08.2003. The memo of appeal was thereafter suitably amended to cover the ensuing situation. The appellant claims proforma promotion in BS-20 from the date when his juniors were promoted in the said scale.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The facts narrated above are by and large' admitted by the parties. There is no denying the fact that the appellant who was proceeded against in departmental proceedings was not found guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer in two separately conducted inquiry proceedings. Both the inquiry reports dated 12.05.2000 and 16.07.2000 had specifically exonerated the appellant of the charges. The suspension further continued and the formal order of reinstatement was not passed.
The two references before the Accountability Court No, 1, Quetta were decided vide judgment dated 26.07.2001 and 25.10.2001 respectively and in both the cases the appellant was acquitted as the charges could not be established against him. The CSB that met on 26.06.2000 and 26.04.2001 deferred the appellant on account of the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the references before the Accountability Court No, 1, Quetta. When the CSB, however, met on 22.06.2002, both the proceedings had culminated in favour of the appellant. The appellant stood reinstated in service vide Notification dated 30.03.2002 and his suspension period from 08.11.1999 to 30.11.2001 was treated as on duty. The NAB references were also decided in favour of the appellant vide judgment dated 26.07.2001 and 25.10.2001 with the result that the appellant stood acquitted of the charges. There was thus nothing on the record to support the recommendations for supersession of the appellant in the meeting of the CSB dated 22.06.2002.
This is moreso as the seniority of the appellant is not controverted. It is also not denied that the appellant had the requisite length of service, had passed the NIPA course and had also comfortably crossed the quantification threshold on each occasion. Soon thereafter, in its meeting on 3rd/4th July 2003, the CSB upon the same record of the appellant cleared him for promotion to BS-20 w,e,f, 18.08.2003.
9. It is true that in terms of the existing policy, posts carrying BS-20 are selection posts and the civil servant must fulfill amongst others the minimum qualifying service, minimum eligibility threshold of 70 marks in PER quantification and shall have passed the mandatory NIPA training as prescribed.
It is also correct that the Board is required to assess the suitability for promotion after careful examination of the service record of officers including pen-pictures, the, nature of experience acquired by the officers during the active service, evaluation reports of the training institute, record of disciplinary proceedings, active service postings and the general reputation of the officers concerned.
10.While examining the case of the appellant according to the guideline referred to above, we are unable to discover anything adverse in his PER assessment etc. to justify the recommendation of supersession as made by the CSB on 22.06.2002.
11.There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the right of seniority is inherent in and relatable to his regular appointment. Seniority is an invaluable term and condition of service and cannot be interfered with lightly unless there are some strong and substantial reasons for deviation. There appears to be none in the instant case. Even if, there was any justification for deferment, (pendency of the NAB references at the relevant time) it stood removed at the time when the CSB met on 22.06.2002. The appellant had been exonerated from the charges in both the NAB references much before the meeting of 22.06.2002. He also stood reinstated in service vide Notification dated 30.03.2002. The supersession on the basis of the 'best of the best Policy' cannot be sustained as the said Policy has been held to be lacking in objectivity by this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble apex Court. Reference in this respect can be made to the judgments recorded by this Tribunal in Appeal No, 1438(R)CS/2003 - Khurshid Naeem Malik Vs. Establishment Division and 'Appeals No, 1059(R)CS/2004 - Liaquat Ali Vs. Federation of Pakistan, 2(R)CS/2005 - Tauqir Ahmed Faiq Vs. Federation of Pakistan and 283(P)CS/2003 - Naseer Ahmad Vs. CSB-1, Income Tax Group. In case of deferment on account of suspension and pending inquiry if the civil servant is exonerated, he must be entitled to promotion with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted. This proposition finds support from 1981 PLC(CS) 615, 1984.PLC(CS) 287 and 2002 PLC(CS) 1647.
12.The upshot of the above discussion is that we are unable to find any material in support of the recommendation of the CSB to supersede the appellant on 22.06.2002. This supersession is hereby converted into deferment. As the appellant was deferred by the CSB on 26.04.2001, the cause of deferment stood removed by his unequivocal exoneration from the charges and reinstatement in service after dropping the departmental proceedings.
13.Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and the appellant is found entitled to promotion to BS-20 w,e,f, 26.04.2001 the date of his deferment by the CBS with all consequential benefits.
14.No order as to costs.
15.Parties be informed.