Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Akram Khan Niazi was an Inspector (BS-16) in Anti-Narcotics Force. His grievance is that Respondents No, 3 to 8, junior to him, were promoted as Assistant Directors (BS-17) vide order dated 28.06.2011 whereas he was unlawfully superseded.
Since his departmental appeal dated 23.07.2011 was not responded, he was constrained to file the present appeal.
2. According to the respondents the appellant was not found fit for promotion and was superseded by the Departmental Promotion Committee in view of his bad service record. It was also stated that disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings were pending against him, which was another reason for his supersession.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The private respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte.
4. The appellant had been issued eight explanations and three warnings during the period from 22:03.2005 to 03.01.2008. It is stated by the respondents that it was due to that he was superseded.
In our view he should not have been superseded for this reason alone that he had been issued explanations and warnings. He had earned average confidential reports for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009 whereas for the year 2010 he had earned good report. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has not been controverted that even in the average reports the appellant was found fit for promotion. Average reports are not adverse reports. Since the appellant was not found unfit for promotion in these reports, he should have been considered for promotion.
5. As regards criminal case, the Special Judge, Anti-Narcotics Court had issued a direction for submission of report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant. In Criminal Appeal No, 177/2011 this direction of the Narcotics Court was set aside by a Division Bench of the Lahore. High Court vide judgment dated 28.03.2011. In the presence of the judgment of the High Court it could not be said that criminal proceedings departmental proceedings were pending against the appellant. Hence on this ground also he, could not be superseded.
6. Promotion is not a right but to be considered for promotion is a vested right. Consideration for promotion has to be meaningful and purposeful. We are of the view that the appellant was not properly considered for promotion. Average reports should not have been treated as adverse especially when he was not found unfit for promotion. There was also no case, disciplinary or criminal proceedings against him. As such he was entitled to proper consideration for promotion.
7. In the above circumstances, we accept the appeal, set aside his supersession and direct the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with back benefits.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.