ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Muhammad Arshad, Constable No. 1003/L, office of D.I.-G.
Police, Lahore Range, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police (Administration), office of the D.I.-G.
Lahore Range, Lahore, D.I.G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and I.-G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 25-7-1981 (Annexure --C') to so far as it ignores the appellant for admission to List --B-1' and final order dated 21-2-1982 (Annexure `F') be set aside and respondents be directed to admit the appellant to List ' B-1' from the date the other colleagues of the appellant were so admitted on the basis of the examination undertaken by the appellant and others.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Muhammad Arshad Constable No. 1003/L, Punjab Police Department, the appellant, was brought on List 'A' vide D.I.-G. Lahore Office Order No. 66-22/81 dated 21-1-1981 w.e.f. 1-1-1981. Prior to appellant's admission to List 'A', he had been fined equal to 10.
Days' pay for misconduct while posted at Police Line Lahore, absented himself without leave from 23-4-1978 to 26-4-1978 vide office order No. 390-5 dated 30-4-1978. A competitive examination for admission to List `B-1' was held for Constables of Lahore District in May 1981. The appellant qualified for the said examination, vide order No. 31668-795/B dated 25-7-1981, the Constables on List 'A' were admitted to List ---B-1' ; but the name of the appellant was not included in this list. The appellant submitted a representation to the D.I.-G., Lahore (respon--dent No. 2) which was rejected. The appellant filed an appeal against these orders of the D.I.-G. To the I.-G.P., Lahore (respondent No. 3). On this respondent No. 3, directed the respondent No. 2 to consider the appellants' case in the light of rule 13.8-A of Police Rules. However, by order dated 21-2-1982, appellant's said representation was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant qualified the . Com--petitive examination even then the appellant was not admitted to List IB-I' on the basis that the Constable had an adverse entry while his colleagues were brought on List 'B-1' vide order of D.I.-G. Police, Lahore dated 25-7-1981. This was not valid ground for not bringing the appellant to List 'B-1'. The appellant had been inflicted a minor punishment of deduction of 10 days' pay vide order dated 30-4-1978. This minor punish--ment could not create a hurdle in the way of admission to List 'B-1' of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to rule 13.8-A of the Police Rules according to which infliction of minor penalty is no bar to admission or retention in Lists A', ' B' or 'C'. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this minor punishment given in the year 1978 did not stand in the way of admission of the appellant to List `A' earlier in the same year i.e. 1981. Thus, the appellant could on no ground whatsoever be refused his admittance to List B-1' while his service record bad been excellent and he was also given cash amounts commendation certificates during the year 1980 and on these very facts he was brought on List `A' w.e.f. 1-1-1981. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Case No. 549/1512 of 1982, Haji Muhammad v. Superinten--dent of Police, Lahore, etc. The appellant in this case was directed to be brought on List `B-1' when he had four adverse entries having minor punishments and no major punishment. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, as is clear from the parawise com--ments submitted on this appeal by the respondents, the appellant had only one minor punishment that too awarded in the year 1978. Thus in view of the mandatory provision of rule 13.8-A of the Police Rules, the appellant could not be ignored for bringing him on List 'B-1' from the same date on which his colleagues were brought on List `B-1'. The appellant's counsel prayed that directions be issued to the respondents so that the appellant is brought on List 'B-1' on 25-7-1981.
5. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney has argued that a criteria was fixed by the D.I.-G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore for admission to List 'B-1' where it was decided that no Constable with any adverse entry be considered for admission to this List. The appellant had one punishment, hence he could not be brought on List `B-1'. Thus, the appellant has been ignored correctly and lawfully.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. It is clear from the record and parawise comments submitted by the respondents that the appellant was ignored for admission to `B-1' list on the basis that appel--lant had one punishment i.e. Fine equal to 10 days' pay for misconduct while posted at Police Lines, Lahore, absented himself without leave on 23-4-1978 to 26-4-1978 (Order No. 390-5, dated 30-4- 1978). This is a minor punishment (as per rule 4 (1) (a) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and it stood on record when the appellant was admitted to List 'A' w.e.f. 1-1- 1981 vide order No. 66-22/81, dated 21-1-1981. Thus, it is clear that the appellant was considered suitable to be brought on List 'A' by D.I.-G., Lahore in January, 1981. After comple--tion of the competitive examination other colleagues of the appellant were brought on List `B-1' but the appellant was refused the admission to List 'B-1' on the grounds that he bad adverse entry. Perusal of the service record of the appellant shows that there is no other adverse entry on record except that one minor punishment mentioned above, that too con--cerning the year 1978. This fact also cannot be ignored that the appellant was brought on- List --A' in January, 1981 when he had this adverse entry/ minor punishment against him. The appellant was also awarded five cash awards for his excellent performance of duties during the period January 1981 to June, 1981, prior to ignoring him for admission on List --B-1' during July, 1981. 1t will be appropriate to reproduce the Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, rule 13.8-A, in this case which is as follows :- '13.8-A-(1) Disqualification for admission to or retention in Lists A, B or C.-The infliction of any major punishment shall be a to bar to ad--mission to or retention in Lists A, B or C, provided that (a) for special mis reasons to be recorded by the Superintendent in each case, and subject to confirmation by the Deputy Inspector-General, this dis--qualification may be waved and (b) after six months' continuous good conduct in the case of censure of confinement to quarters or on expiry of the period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period, a constable may be readmitted at the discretion of the Superintendent.
(2) Gazetted officers shall look out for and encourage their Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors to bring to notice, constables who, by person of their general character and ability or of special acts, are suited for inclusion in lists A, B or C, and shall, after satisfying themselves by necessary enquiries, make suitable recommendations to the Superintendent."
The above rule makes it clear that the appellant could have been refused entry only to lists A, B or C, if he had earned major punishment. When the appellant had only one minor punishment that too awarded in the year 1978 ; and the appellant was brought on List `A' in January, 1981, after considering this major punishment so awarded to him ; there seems no justification to ignore the appellant for entry to List ---B-1' during July, 1981,by the same Authority who had earlier admitted the appellant on List `A' in the same circumstances and merits of the case. Mandatory provision of rule 13.8-A of Police Rules mentioned above is very clear that entry to List `B-1' could only be refused if the appellant was awarded major punishment.
7. It is worth mentioning that the appellant has been admitted on a later date to List `B-1' w.e.f. 3-1- 1983 vide order No. 18-34/83 under the same circumstances and merits of the case, thus refusal of the respondents to admit the appellant on earlier date to List 'B-1' i.e. From 15-7-1981 is not understood. Thus, refusal of the respondents to bring the appellant 'on List B-1' from 15-7-1981 is unjustified and unlawful.
8. We have already held in a similar case No. 549/1512 of 1981, in case of Haji Muhammad v.
Superintendent of Police, Lahore and others vide our judgment dated 17-5-1982, as follows---: "In the case of the appellant we have satisfied ourselves from the peru--sal of the record of this case that he was not recipient of any major punishment in his career and the only impediments in his way were four bad entries. These entries were the result of major punishment so awarded to him, therefore, we are clear in our mind that in view of the mandatory provision of rule 13.8 of the Police Rules, the D.I.-G. Of Police cannot ignore him as such. As mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment that the D.I.-G. Of Police himself has unequivocally observed that if he had not these four bad entries to his credit, his case would have been treated at par with others for relaxation of age limit. We are conscious of the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant that when performance of a civil servant is adjudged, the authority so adjudicating on that matter, would be well-advised to take into consideration of the bright aspects of his career also. Without entering into this controversy regarding bright and dark aspects of the appellant what w have to decide is whether the name of the appellant can be ignored from List B.-I., on the strength of the minor punishment or C not, we have no hesitation to find that the action taken against the appellant vide impugned orders is not warranted by the Police rule 13.8 itself.
6. The result is we accept the appeal and direct the respondent to bring the name of the appellant on List B-1."
9. Keeping the above analysis and our earlier judgment in view, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order No. 31668-795/B, dated 25-7-1981 (Annexure `C') is not warranted by the Police Rule 13.8-A ibid itself. The result is we accept the appeal and direct the respondents to bring the name of the appellant on List `B-1' from the date the other colleagues of the appellant were so admitted to List 'B-1' vide order of the D.I.-G., Lahore No. 31668-795/13 dated 25-7-1981.
There will be no orders as to costs.