' M. SALEM CHAUDRRY (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, Maqbool Elahi Cheema, wants that he should be admitted to list 'F' which is the list of Sub-Inspectors of Police approved for promotion, with effect from 15th May, 1972 and, in this regard, appeals against the final order of the L-G. P. Dated 21st March, 1979.
' The appellant was appointed as A.S.I. On 29th November, 1960 and was promoted Sub-Inspector on 26th June, 1968. Subsequently, he was sent on deputation to East Pakistan where he became a POW and was repatriated on 4th January, 1974. During his absence the cases of a number of SIs were taken up in 1972 and 1973 for admission into list 'F'. On representation to the DIG, Multan Range, the appellant was confirmed as S! From 26th June, 1968 instead of 26th July, 1972 but his admission to list 'F' was not approved with retrospective effect. This admission was made with effect from 18th May, 1975 which obviously rendered him junior to his colleagues when he was ultimately promoted as Inspector on 3rd October, 1975.
2. The appellant was heard. The position taken up by the Police Department as mentioned in the impugned order, is that the case of the appellant was re-examined and re-considered on the recommendation of the DIG, Lahore Range, but in view of his media rerecord prior to 1971, as compared with that of other is admitted to list 'F' in 1972, his representation was turned down.
3. The appellant has already been confirmed as SI from 26th June 1968. His other demand- admission into list 'F' from 1972 instead of 1975-is contingent upon his selection for the purpose on the of his performance and record. It is agreed that his name was considered, even, re-considered.
It do not, therefore, be alleged that he was ignored or A that his case was not taken up at all. As the final decision not to accommodate his plea is based on his past record, we see no occasion to interfere in the matter. The appeal is rejected.
1981 PLC (C.S.) 750 [Service Tribunal Punjab] Present : M. Saleern Chaudhry, Chairman and Mazhar Munir, Member MUHAMMAD SULEMAN versus DIRECTOR/AGRICULTURE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Appeal No, 18 of 1977, decided on 22nd April, 1979.
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975- -- R. 6 (3) (4)-Show-cause notice served-Explanation submitted through proper channel but retained by intermediary authority-Dismissal order passed by competent authority without considering explanation-Irregularity rendering dismissal order not sustainable-Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside and for decision after considering explanation-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.
4. [p. 750p1 Appellant in person. A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Respondents.
' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--This is an appeal filed by Mr. Muhammad Suleman, Field Assistant, against the order of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Lahore Division, dated 6th July, 1976 dismissing the appellant from service.
2. The facts of the case are that Mr. Muhammad Suleman, Field Assistant, Agriculture Department, was served with a show-cause notice. The appellant submitted an explanation which did not reach the Director. The Director, in the absence of the explanation, dismissed from service the appellant vide his order dated 6th July, 1976. The appellant filed a representation against the order of dismissal on 17th July, 1976, which has not as yet been decided. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Tribunal.
3. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, while dismissing the appellant, did not take into account the explanation submitted by the appellant. It is strange that while the orders of dismissal were issued on 6th July, 1976, it is stated that the explanation submitted by the appellant on 18th June, 1975 had not reached the office of the Deputy Director till 6th July, 1976. It is, however, admitted that the explanation of the appellant was received 29th June, 1976 in the Office of the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sheikhupura, who retained the explanation of the appellant in his office for some unknown reasons. The appellant in his appeal of 17th July, 1976 had also mentioned the fact that he had submitted to the Sheikhupura Office an explanation to the show-cause notice. He, therefore, prayed that the order of dismissal may be declared illegal. He filed a supplementary appeal on 25th August, 1976. The appeals have so far not been decided by Director, Agriculture. By not considering the explanation which had already been submitted, an irregularity has been committed. The orders of dismissal are, therefore, set aside and the to the Dy. Director, Agriculture for deciding the case after taking into consideration the explanation of the appellant.