' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Qazi Mohammad Ayyaz, has filed this appeal under section 4, of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded D. I.-G., Multan Range, and I.-G.
Police Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondents be directed to promote the appellant to List F and as Inspector Police from the date from which his juniors have been promoted or at least he should be considered for promotion on merits on the basis of his record and seniority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was officiating Sub-Inspector of Police w. e. f. 17th July, 1971. On 12th November, 1975, in consequence of the charge of obtaining illegal gratification, he was reverted to the post of A. S. I. An enquiry was instituted to probe into the charges so levelled against him, but the Enquiry Officer reported that the case against him was not proved. S. P.
Muzaffargarh, however, did not accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and observed that the appellant was guilty of corruption. No positive punishment was inflicted upon him as a result of the said enquiry or even by the S. P. Muzaffargarh, yet it was considered that the reversion which had already been ordered before the start of the enquiry, would be sufficient deterrent for the appellant. The appellant filed a departmental appeal which failed. Aggrieved against the attitude of the Department the appellant filed an appeal No, 6/876 of 1977 before this Tribunal. While the appeal was pending the respondent No, 2, D. I.-G., Multan Range, reconsidered the matter and passed order No, 4606 dated 17th February, 1979 on which the appellant was promoted as Sub- Inspector of Police with original seniority. The said order of the D.
1.G. Was produced before this Tribunal which was pleased to hold that the appeal had become infructuous as the claim lodged before this Tribunal, stood already accepted by Respondent No, 2.
The Respondent No, 2, vide order dated 12th March, 1979, suspended the original seniority of the appellant and placed him on probation w. e. f. 1st March, 1979, thus disturbed the seniority of the appellant. He claimed that he was entitled to the seniority from the date of his officiating appointment and from the date of his confirmation as such. However, the appellant came before this Tribunal against this discrimination and the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 4th January, 1981 observed as under :- "In view of our above discussions we set aside the impugned order dated 24th October, 1979, being without any force and justification alongwith the seniority list so for mulated ignoring the rights of the appellant in that matter. We maintain the order dated 17th February, 1979 of D.
1.-G, P. Multan, in favour of the appellant with all its force. Before parting with this case we would observe that in the matter of promotion this Court is not empowered to give any directions and leave the matter entirely to the departmental authority."
' The appellant has once again filed this present appeal with the prayer as already mentioned above.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of respondent No, 2 and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the claim of the appellant and find that this matter stood adjudicated in our earlier judgment wherein we directed the respondents that his original seniority should be maintained as given to him by the D. I.-G, Multan, in order dated 17th February, 1979. At the same time we left the matter of promotion entirely to the discretion of the Competent Authority as the said authority was the sole judge of his fitness for further promotion. After perusing the record of this case we find that Respondent No, 2 did riot recommends the appellant's case for promotion to List because he was being dealt with departmentally for various misconducts pertaining to his service. It was further found that during the year 1981 he earned four departmental punishments. At one time his one year's approved service was forfeited with permanent effect and on three occasions he was censured on the charge of misconduct. In this way it would become obvious that an officer with such blemished record would not be a fit person for further promotion.
Respondent No, 2 did implement the judgment of the Service Tribunal by allowing the appellant his original seniority, therefore it cannot be said that the order of this tribunal was ignored in any manner. It is a settled principle, according to the Service Rules that mere restoration of seniority does no entitle a civil servant to early promotion when his service record is not satisfactory.
6. In the light of our above discussion we do not feel persuaded by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that he should have been promoted as well after his original seniority was restored, in complete disregard of his present performance. The result is, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.