S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Bashir Ahmad A. S.-I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police Headquarter, Lahore, D. I.-G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, and I.-G. Police, Punjab Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 19-12-1977 and the final order dated 24-6-1981, be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service as Sub-Inspector with all back benefits of pay and allowances, etc.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Incharge of the Police Guard at Iqbal Park, Lahore, was selected for Lines Officer Course commencing at P. T. C. Sihala from 20-10- 1977. He, however, did not make himself available for the same and when a probe was made it transpired that he had left Iqbal Park, Lahore on 6-10-1977 by recording D. D. Entry No. 10, dated 6- 10-1977 in the Roznamcha of Police Guard, Iqbal Park, wherein he mentioned that he was proceeding to Rawalpindi to collect T. A. Of staff from Rawalpindi and then he would proceed to Multan. When he returned on 22-10-1977, he noted his presence in D. D. Entry No. 3 mentioning therein that he had come back after the disbursement of the amount and he had received injuries in an accident and was proceeding to the hospital for treatment. On 14-12-1977 he was found in shaby dregs by Khan Zafarullah Khan, S. P./Traffic Incharge duty in the High Court, in Muhammad Ahmad Khan case. Similarly on 14-12-1977, he recorded D. D. Entry No. 1 at 1-30 p.m. About his departure to resume duty in City Division mentioning therein that he had been repeatedly directed by S. P./City Division to report as such and that he had been orally allowed to do so. The assertion that he had permission of the S. P./City Division to act as mentioned above was a hoax as no such permission was available. This incident culminated into the impugned order which reverted the appellant to a substantive rank of A. S.-I. With immediate effect. Departmental proceedings were ordered to be instituted against the appellant under Police E & D Rules. He filed a revision petition to the D. I.-G. Police, Lahore which was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has justified the stand taken up by the appellant and his departure to Rawalpindi to disburse T. A-. To the staff of P. R. P. He has also claimed that the S. P.
Verbally advised the appellant that he should have reported back from duty at P. S. Old Anarkali, Lahore after he was deputed for temporary duty to Chuharkana because there was no order of the appellant's party at Police Lines. It has been argued that the order of the reversion to substantive rank was a punishment and could not be made without taking recourse to the E & D Rules.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that whatever has been asserted on behalf of the appellant is an oral claim not supported by any document to show that the appellant left Rawalpindi with prior permission of his superior or that his reporting at P. S. Old Anarkali, Lahore, instead of Police Lines, was supported by any written order of the S. P. Learned District Attorney has submitted that both these assertions have been vehemently denied in the parawise comments and this Tribunal has to place reliance on the written assertions of the superiors of the appellant and not on the verbal submissions of the appellant. He has hotly contested the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that reversion of an officiating person to a substantive rank, would be a punishment. He has further clamed that the appeal is barred by time and is liable to be dismissed on that score also.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by both the parties and first of all will advert to point of limitation which is a legal issue raised by the learned District Attorney during the course of arguments. The analysis of the same shows that S. P. Hqrs. Passed the impugned order dated 19-12-1977. The appellant filed appeal to the D. I.-G. On 12-7-1971. The same was decided op 16-9-1979. The ultimate revision before the I- G. P. Was disposed of on 13-10-1980. In this manner even if we stretch the time limit to the final disposal of his revision by the I.-G. P. And date would be 13-10-1980. The appeal in this case has been filed on 23-7-1981. In this way the appellant has filed this appeal after a lapse of 9 months and has filed no application for condona- -tion of delay. The plea of the appellant that he made another mercy petition to the D. I.-G. Police which was disposed of on 24-6-1981, also be taken into consideration and it be deemed that the final reply was received by the appellant on 24-6-1981, we are afraid we cannot accept this plea as valid one because a civil servant cannot be allowed to go on agitating his grievance once he has been finally informed that his legal remedy so available to him, has been exhausted. In fact his petition ha been disposed of on 13-10-1980, by the I.-G. P. And he had to approach this Tribunal, if so advised within 30 days of the said order. We are of the considered opinion that the objection of the learned District Attorney is not without force and is liable to succeed.
8. With regard to the merits of the case the only issue before us for adjudication is whether the competent authority without taking any recourse to the E. & D. Rules could revert the appellant who is not substantive in rank, or n6t. We are of the view that reversion from the officiating rank to the substantive post of civil servant, is within the competency of the competent authority, when it finds that conduct of the appellant was no upto mark or that he was guilty of lapses which did not deserve that he should continue on senior post any longer. The appellant in this case was officiating A. S. I. Therefore, it cannot be said that any vested right had accused to him, which has been taken away by the competent authority and for that matter recourse has not been made to the procedure laid down in the Police & D Rules for such action.
9. The result is we do not find any merits in this appeal and as well find it barred by time, therefore, we proceed to dismiss the same. However, parties will bear their own costs.