ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Bahadur Khan, Head Constable No. 668, District Sahiwal, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974, and has impleaded Superinten--dent of Police, Sahiwal, Deputy Inspector-General of Police,. Multan, and Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 24-5-1980 and order passed by Respondent No. 3 dated 12-11-1981 be set aside. He has also prayed that direc--tion be given to the department to promote the appellant as an ASI as he is quite qualified for promotion of a job and his name be restored to List `D'.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Bahadur Khan, joined Police Force Department in the year 1956 as constable. He was presented as officiating Head Constable on 16-9-1965 and confirmed as Head Constable on 6-12-1972. He was promoted as officiating A.S.I w.e.f. 11-5-1974. On 4-10-1978 the appellant's rank was reduced to Head Constable. The appellant made a representation for re-promotion which was considered by D.I.-G. Multan Range and ordered "let him prove his worth". He was, however, allowed to continue on List `D'. He made an appeal to Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, which was rejected vide order dated 24-5-1980. In the meanwhile, the appellant was removed from List `D' vide D.1 -G. Multan Range Multan order dated 14-10-1980. On this the appellant made an appeal to Inspector---General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, which was rejected vide his order dated 31-10-1981, conveyed to the appellant vide S. P. Sahiwal endorsement dated 12-11-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Head Constable was reverted on 4-10-1978 to the substantive rank of Head Constable on the basis of adverse reports for the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977. On the representations of the appellant, in the year 1979, the-adverse remarks for the year 1975 were converted into an advice while adverse remarks for the year 1976 and 1977-were expunged. As the adverse remarks were expunged, the appellant should have been repromoted as A.S.I. As requested by the appellant. Moreover, when the adverse remarks for the year 1976 and 1977 were expunged and for the year 1975 were converted into an advice, removal of the appellant from List `D' was unjustified. The appellant's counsel referred to para. 3 of the parawise comments submitted by the respondent on the appeal of the appellant, and submitted that it has been admitted by the respondent that the adverse remarks recorded in the A C.Rs. For the year 1976 and 1977 were expunged by the competent authority while remarks pertaining to the year 1975 were converted into an advice. Keeping these facts in view, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on expunction of adverse remarks, the record of the appellant became unblemished and it was a matter of justice that the appellant should have been repromoted as A.S.I. And also keeping these facts in view, removal of his name from List 'D' was illegal. In this connection he has relied upon Police Rule 13.17 and other relevant rules on the subject.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was promoted as officiating A.S.I. As he earned adverse reports for the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977, there was no alternative but to revert him to his substantive rank of Head Constable as he was not found fit for holding the post of officiating A.S.I. No doubt his adverse remarks for the yea 1976, 1977 were expunged fully and for the year 1975 partially, however, keeping his unsatisfactory service record of these years, it was decided to keep him under special report for a period of six months and to try him in the field to determine his fitness for repromotion and keeping him on List `D'. But in the year 1980 he was censured and his integrity was not vouched safe. The appellant was also called upon on 31-8-1980, to show cause as to why his name may not be removed from list `D'. On his personal hearing on 18- 9-1980 the appellant contended and demanded that S.P. Sahiwal be asked for a special report as his work as Moharrir P.S. Malka Hans had been commended by him during his inspection when he was also awarded a commendation certificate with cash reward of Rs.
60. The appellant at the same time had been selected by him for posting as Moharrir P. S. `B' Division Sahiwal tip improve the Police Station record. The contention of the appellant was accepted and report from S. P.
Sahiwal, was called, for. The S. P. Sahiwal again reported that the appellant's integrity was doubtful and there was general feeling among the public that his conduct smacked of corruption and he was removed from the Police Station on the basis of complaints. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the impugned orders are well considered, are legal and his appeal is liable to be rejected.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case in detail. It is clear from the record that the appellant was reverted to his substantive rank of Head Constable by the competent authority when it was found that he was not fit to hold the rank due to his uneven record of service. We have also observed that the appellant was kept on List ,D' and he was given chance to improve his work and conduct and was placed under special report. Despite this it was reported by S.P. Sahiwal that the appellant was not a man of integrity and was censured in the year 1980. As his honesty was doubtful and his efficiency and conduct did not warrant him to retain on List `D', hence, removal of his name from List `D' was in order and was perfectly justified.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.
There will be no orders as to costs.