Shuja-ud-Din, Member .--The appellant while serving as ASPS (BS-14) in the Postal Department stood senior to Respondent No. 3 as per seniority list corrected up to 2009. Through impugned order dated 19.01.2015, the Respondent No. 3 Abdul Rauf was promoted. According to appellant, by dint of said order dated 19.01.2015 he was superseded without assigning any reasons.
2: The contention of appellant as urged by the learned counsel Sh. Iqbal Mahmood Anjum, Advocate is that the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the supersession of appellant in spite of the fact that he was senior at Sr. No. 17 and considered Respondent No. 3 who was at S.No. 18 in seniority list corrected up to 2009.
Thus, the appellant was superseded and Respondent No. 3 and others were promoted. The appellant agitated the same' through filing departmental representation dated 16.02.2015 before the PMG (Southern) Punjab, Multan.
Learned counsel pointed out that the seniority list consigned to DSPS Sahiwal Division dated 03.06.2009 clearly shows the appellant as senior to Respondent No. 3, Abdul Rauf but vide order dated 20.02.2017 the DSPS informed him that he was superseded by the DPC due to penalties against him. It is next argued that the appellant was superseded in spite of his fitness for promotion in BS-16 merely on the ground that minor penalties were awarded to him whereas according to Promotion Policy 2007, issued vide Establishment Division O.M. dated 24.10.2007, civil servant with minor penalty and adverse remarks in PER do not bar for consideration for promotion. The implication of Rule 210 of Post Office Manual Vol-IV has already been elucidated by FST Islamabad in its judgment dated . 15.02.2013 in Appeal No. 2217(R)CS/201 1 as to be contradictory to the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held in a number of cases. Therefore, the DPC and the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have violated the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court by promoting the Respondent No. 3 who was junior to appellant in the seniori ty list. Moreover , every organ of the state / public functionaries are bound to obey the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (2006 PLC(CS)101. Further more, some colleagues of the appellant who have been awarded minor punishments were promoted to next higher scales; therefore, the competent authority treated the appellant with discrimination and violated the provision of Article 25 of Constitution Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Finally , he contended that the appellant was eligible for to be considered for promotion and the promotion cannot be withheld on account of minor penalties. He prayed that the DPC may be directed to reconsider the case of the appellant for antedated promotion in BS-16 from the date when his junior Respondent No. 3 Abdul Rauf and others were promoted.
3. In reply , the respondents categorically submitted that for considering a civil servant for promotion the Rule 210 of Post Office Manual Vol-IV provides that no minor or major penalty should have been imposed on him during the last five years on the finalization of Departmental disciplinary proceedings against him. Since the appellant penalized with minor penalties within the bracket of five years, was therefore, the DPC had rightly superseded the appellant against other incumbents. It is further pointed out that a DPC meeting was held on 13.01.2015 to consider the case of appellant and Respondent No. 3 for promotion on the basis of gradation list of most senior officials working in APSO/A.S/MST (BS-14) of Southern Circle Multan. The gradation list up to 01.01.2014 was circulated and no appeal was received or pending against the said list. The DPC recommended Respondent No. 3, who was senior to the appellant in the said list. The minutes of DPC meeting held on 13.01.2015 shows that the appellant was not superseded, rather , he was junior , so could not be promoted. Learned AA-G contended that although in the subsequent meetings of DPC held on 29.10.2015, 25.11.2016 and 28.07.2017, the appellant was superseded but he did not challenge the same. In the instant appeal, the appellant prayed for his antedated promotion when his junior Abdul Rauf and others were promoted whereas the Respondent No. 1 was promoted on 19.01.2015 and others were promoted in subsequent orders which have not been impugned. Since, the appellant's case for promotion has now been considered and promoted vide order dated 29.07.2019 therefore no case is made out for indulgence. Lastly , it has been submitted by the respondents that the appeal may be dismissed being devoid of merits.
4. We have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire record made available. Before discussing the moot question of the instant appeal, it would be appropriate to go through the prayer of the appellant mentioned in the memo of appeal which reads as: "In view of above circumstances and foregoing reasons, it is implored that this appeal may graciously be accepted and the DPC may be directed to re-consider the appellant's case for his antedated promotion in BPS-16 from the date when his junior Mr. Abdul Rauf (Private respondent) and others were promoted from ASPS (BPS-14) to Senior Postmaster (BPS-16) to meet the ends of ustice and the supersession of the appellant may kindly be ordered to be converted into deferment.
Any other relieuourethlemiibun al deems it and proper . may also be awarded to appellant."
It is abundantly clear that the appellant has made request which is twofold, firstly , ante-dated promotion from the date when Respondent No. 3 was promoted, Secondly when others were promoted by adding "and" within. Since, the respondent was promoted on 19.01.2015 and others (not named in the memo. of appeal ) were promoted subsequently . However , we deem it just and proper to analyse the main issue regarding alleged supersession of appellant and promotion of Respondent No. 3 in the wake of DPC held on 13.01.2015. The minutes of that meeting as submitted by the respondents conspicuously show that according to the gradation list corrected up to 01.01.2014, the Respondent No. 3 stood senior to the appellant. There were three candidates for consideration by the DPC on 13.01.2015 namely .
1. Rana Shabbir Ahmad Dy . Senior Postmaster B, Nagar GPO
2. Mr . Abdul Rauf Khan ASPOs (Saving) Mulktan GPO
3. Mr Raffique Rabbani ASPOs B. Nagar Sub Division.
They were reflected at seniority position of 1, 2 and 3 respectively . The senior most Rana Shabbir Ahmad was superseded while Respondent No. 3 who was at second position was promoted. There was one vacant post' available therefore the appellant was not recommended for promotion on, 13.01.2015. Hence, the antedated promotion of appellant from the date when Respondent No. 3 was promoted is not possible. Obviously , while promoting Respondent No. 3, in the light of DPC meeting dated 13.01.2015, the appellant was not superseded; therefore, specific prayer of the appellan t for antedated promotion from the said date is baseless and cannot be allowed.
4. Coming to the second plea of appellant that he may be awarded antedated promotion from the date when others were promoted. The respondents have submitted minutes of subsequent DPC meetings held on 29.10.2015, 25.11.2016 and 28.07.2017. In these three meetings of DPC the appellant was superseded due to the common reason of punishments awarded to him. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to see the implication of Rule 210
(2) of Post Office Manual Vol-IV in the light of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as referred by the appellant. Under the said Rule a civil servant is eligible for consideration of promotion in case no major or minor penalty has been imposed during last five years on the finalization of the confidential reports. While dealing with similar proposition in Service Appeal No. 2217 (R)CS/201 1 of "Ijaz Ahmad' Minhas vs. ASPO, Gujranwala GPO and others , this Tribunal at Islamabad Bench vide judgment dated 15.12.2013 held that Rule 210(2) of Post Office Manual Vol-IV as referred by the, respondents whereby a person is eligible for consideration of promotion on which no major or minor penalty has been imposed during the last 5 years on the finalization of the confidential Reports. On the face of this, it seems to be contradictory to the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in number of cases that promotion could not be withheld on account of mino r penalties as the appellant has been superseded by the DPC only for the reasons of imposition of a minor penalty which is against the ruling of the apex Court. In addition to that, we have respectfully considered the reported cases vide 1991 SCMR1637 and 2000 SCMR 645," and firmed up our view that the appellant should not have been superseded due to the reasons as- signed by the DPC in its meeting dated 29.10.2015. Irrespective of the fact that the appellant has been promoted as late as on 29.07.2019, the first supersession by the DPC has no legal ef fect and not tenable.
6. Foregoing in view, the reasons assigned by the DPC in its meeting dated 29.10.2015 for supersession of appellant are not sustainable in the light of judgments of Apex Court as well as in the light of above observation.
Therefore, the first supersession is hereby converted into deferment and his case be placed before the DPC for consideration in accordance with law and rules. In these terms the appeal is disposed of.
7. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly .