MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (Msmata).-This appeal has been directed against order of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargohda issued vide his Office No, 16299-303/E, dated 23rd August, 1980, whereby the names of 18 Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police were brought on Promotion List 'E' while the name of the appellant was not included therein. The appellant has prayed that his name may also be directed to be brought on the said List.
2. According to the appellant, he was appointed as Constable in 1950 and was promoted as A.S.I., Police in September, 1969 due to his good work, honesty and efficiency and was later on confirmed as A.S.I. With effect from 1st July, 1974. He was recommended for the entry of his name in List `E' by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang, vide his letter dated 7th August, 1977. It is also averred that while he was posted as A.S.I. At Police Station Kalurekot, Superintendent of Police, Mianwali, while making formal inspection on 31st December, 1978 also recorded the report that the appellant deserved promotion to List `E' and that he would be secommended for the same at the proper time.
Although the appellant has submitted representations for the inclusion of his name in List `E' basing his claim on the aforesaid recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, the respondent has not acceded to his request. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was considered for List 'E' in the year 1979 he was not found suitable because he bad adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1976. He has also submitted that the adverse remarks contained in the report of 1979 had also been expunged, while the remarks for the year 1979 were not conveyed to him. So these could not have been considered against him while determining the suitability of the appellant for including his name in Promotion List `E'. He has concluded that since the adverse remarks contained in 1976 and 1977 reports have already been expunged so the very basis on which he was ignored for promotion List 'E' has washed off. As such, he is eligible to be considered for Promotion List `E,' in view of the pronouncement of this Tribunal reported as Muhammad ljaz Ahmad Kahloon v. Province , Abdul Jabbar V. L-G. Police and others and on the case of Chauhdry Muhammad Aslam v. Province from the date his next junior was promoted. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has argued that Annexure 'A' of the written Statement shows that his representation for the expunction of adverse remarks contained in A.C.R. For the year 1976 was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 5th December, 1977 while the representation for the said purpose regarding his A.C.R. For the year 1977 was accepted by the D.I.-G. P. Vide order dated 8th September, 1979 and the adverse remarks contained therein were expunged. He has also submitted that even thereafter the work of the appellant was not satisfactory and he earned bad report for the year 1979. When he was reported to be an extremely fat and flabby officer, a grotesque sight in uniform who performed his duties' in a routine manner.
He has also submitted that although the adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R for the year 1977 had been expunged yet the respondent had again considered him in 1980 for including his name in the Promotion List 'E' and was not found suitable. He has further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to the relief claimed because he had been sleeping over the matter since the refusal of the respondent to enter his name in Promotion List 'E' in 1979 and did not agitate the matter before this Tribunal because he was satisfied with the orders. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in case No, 426/589 of 1979, Muhammad Ibrahim v. I.-G. Police and others announced on 31st May, 1981. While concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal is not maintainable by virtue of bar contained in proviso (b)t o section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
4. We have minutely gone through the record and have also considered the arguments of the parties. Although the appellant had specifically pleaded in the replication before us that the adverse remarks for the year 1979 were not conveyed to him so these could not have been considered while determining his suitability for promotion List 'E' in the year 1980, yet the respondent has not denied this assertion. We have already held in other cases that the adverse entries which are not conveyed to Civil Servants cannot be taken into account against them for any purpose whatsoever. The parawise comments do show that the appellant was considered in August, 1980, but he was not found fit for Promotion List 'E' on the basis of adverse remarks contained in the A.C.R. For the year 1979. Since these adverse remarks were not conveyed to him so these could not have been considered by the respondent against the appellant for any purpose including entering his name in Promotion List 'E'. We are fortified in this view by the judgment of this Tribunal reported as NLR 1978 Service 162 where we held that the only ground on which the appellant was ignored on 29th August, 1973 was the fact of 'Censure' which was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Authority so the respondent was directed to determine afresh the case of the appellant's promotion with effect from 29th August, 1973.
5. The result of the above discussion is that the appellant is entitled to be considered for entry of his name in Promotion List `E' from 1980 when 18 other Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police were brought on the said List. So we direct that the respondent may consider him for the said purpose in accordance with the rules contained in Chapter 13 of of Punjab Police Rules. The appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above with no orders as to the costs. 1977 PLC (C. S. T.) 180 1981 PLC (C. S.) 408 NLR 1978 Service 1621 2 3 1 2 3