Shuja-ud-Din, Member .--The appellant has impugned the order dated 16.03.2017 of Respondent No. 1, whereby his request for ante-dated promotion w.e.f. 29.06.1989 was declined.
2. Facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly stated, are that the appellant while serving as officer in the National Savings Directorate was falsely implicated in a. criminal case and FIR No. 34, was registered by FIA Crime Circle Lahore u/S. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477, PCA, read with Section 5/247 PCA on 21.04.1988. The appellant was placed under suspension to face departmental proceedings. Meanwhile a meet ing of Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 29.06.1989. His junior namely Pervaiz Iqbal, Assistant National Savings Officer was promoted as Deputy National Savings Officer. However , in due course of time he was acquittal from criminal charges and also exoneration in departmental proceedings. He was promoted as Deputy National Savings Officer, as late as on 31.05.2005. The appellant agitated the same through departmental representation and requested his promotion w.e.f. 29.06.1980. His departmental representation/appeal was kept pending and finally he was informed through letter dated 03.07.2006 that his departmental appeal has been withheld in terms of Rule 7(1) of Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977. The appellant challenged the said order before this Tribunal in his previous service Appeal No 480(L)CS/2006, which was partly allowed with the direction to respondents for considering the case of promotion of the appellant w.e.f. 29.06.1989. The appellant submitted various applications for the implementation of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 04.06.201 1 but no response was given to him. At last, his application dated 22.12.2016 was disposed of by Respondent No. 1 through impugned order dated 16.03.2017, hence the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was falsely implicated in a criminal case FIR No. 34/88 of FIA Crime Circle, Lahore. He was placed under suspension and also arrested in criminal case. After criminal trial, he was acquitted of the charge. He was also exonerated in departmental proceedings. During pendency of criminal case and departm ental proceedings, the appellant was deferred and his juniors were promoted. After acquittal and exoneration, the appellant should have been treated as innocent and promoted. w.e.f.
29.06.1989 but he was deprived of his legal, right. Learned counsel contended that in the previous service Appeal, the respondents were directed to consider the appellant for promotion but through impugned order he was denied his lawful right. Lastly , he prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the respondents be directed to promote the appellant w.e.f. 29.06.1989 (antedate).
4. Mr. Abid Hussain Ch. Learned AA-G contested the appeal on behalf of the respondents. He contended that the appellant was charge sheeted on 27.12.1988 and after departmental proceedings awarded minor penalty of withholding of two increments falling due on 1990 and 1991 was imposed on, 14.05.1992. The competent authority , however absolved the appellant and reinstated him in service with consequential benefits through order dated 16.12.1992. The appellant was again placed under suspension on 09.09.1993 and reinstated on 11.06.2002 later on his suspension periods w.e.f 3.7.1988 to 15.12.1992 and 02.09.1993 to 10.06.2002 were regularized as spent on duty. The appellant was deferred in subsequent DPCs due to various reasons such as want of good ACRs and facing proceedings. In pursuance of previous Judgment of this Tribunal the case of antedated promotion of appellant was placed before the, DPC. In the meeting of the DPC dated 10.2.2017, the case of antedated promotion was not recommended and hence the needful, had been done. On similar footing the appellant again agitating his cause under the pretext of fresh order dated 16.03.2017 whereby he was informed about the decision of DPC. It is next argued that the appellant has not filed departmental representation against the order dated 16.03.2017 therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have 'heard the arguments and perused the record with the able assistanc e of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.A.-G. This Tribunal, as per record, while partly allowing erstwhile service appeal No. 480(L)CS/2006 vide order dated 04.05.201 1, directed the respondents to consider the case of appellant for promotion w.e.f 29.06.1989, when his junior was promo ted. The contention of appellant is that he submitted application along-with certified copy of the said judgment to Respondent No. 1 for implementation of the previous judgment of this Tribunal. The record reflects that the appellant had submitted reminders dated 31.10.2015, 28.06.2016 and 22.12.206 and assert that no action was taken. We have 'noticed with due care the letter dated 16.03.2017 through which appellant was informed about the disposal of his application dated 22.12.206. The operative part of letter is as follows: "In pursuance of judgment dated 04.05 .2011 passed by the Honourable Feder al Services Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 480 (L) CS/2006, his case for antedated promotion to the post of Deputy National Saving Officer w.e.f 29.06.1989 was placed' before the Depar tmental Promotion Committee (DPC), in its meeting held on 10.02.2017.
However , the Committee did not recommend his antedated promotion with remarks that his case was considered by previous DPCs but he was deferred /not recommended on legitimate grounds."
The tenor of the above mentioned letter explicitly shows that the case of appellant for antedated promotion was considered by the DPC on 10.02.2017 in compliance of the order dated. 04.05.201 1 of this. Tribunal. We are surprised that the appellant, this time impugned the above mentioned letter/order dated 16.03.2017 and again prayed for antedate promotion w.e.f 29.06.1989 when his juniors were promoted.
The previous order in appellant's Service Appeal No. 480(L). CS/2006 is very much cleat and the respondents have by now implemented the same through placing the case of promotion before the DPC held on 10.02.2017. His case was considered and decided by the DPC. Hence the same issue which is a past and closed transaction ought not to be adjudged again. The substantive issue has already been decided by this Tribunal therefore, the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment, as to the points decided either of facts, or of law, or of facts and law, places express bar for fresh proceedings on same issues.
6. It would be relevant to add here that this Tribunal can only pass an order for consideration of antedated promotion as recorded in erstwhile order and cannot order for promotion of appellant on any ground. The appellant is seeking indulgence of this Tribunal for passing an order of his antedated promotion again which is, obviously , beyond the scope of this Tribunal. Therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.