' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Abdul Hamid, Constable No, 486 has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Superintendent of Police, Jhang as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the Superintendent of Police, dated 7th July, 1979 and the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha passed on 10th April, 1982 read with the order contained in the Teleprinter Message, dated 31st October, 1978 be set aside and the appellant be given the back dues and that the orders regarding entry of his name in list B-I be declared to be valid and in operation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the examination of Constables on List-A was held on 2nd August, 1976 under the orders of the then Superintendent of Police Jhang. As a result of the said examination Malik Saif-Ullah Khan Tiwana, the then Superintendent of Police, Jhang placed 13 constables securing more than 177 marks on promotion list B-I. Vide his order, dated 4th August, 1976. However, the Superintendent of Police passed an order on 7th August, 1976, whereby he directed that constables securing more than 170 marks be also placed on the said list, as such the name of the appellant was also brought on list B.-I. However, complaints were filed with the respondents alleging the malpractices during the preparation of the result. The P. D. S. P. Was deputed to hold an enquiry in the matter who reported that the appellant had in fact secured 152 marks only against the minimum qualifying standard of 170 marks fixed by the Superintendent of Police. In this background the appellant was proceeded against departmentally and the impugned orders dated 7th July, 1979 was passed whereby his pay was reduced by three years increments with permanent effect. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was also rejected. The appellant submitted a revision petition to the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was withheld by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police.
Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that admittedly the order of the Superintendent of Police directing the entry of his name in list B-I was issued and acted upon as such no locus poenitentiae was left with the Superintendent of Police to withdraw the said order. It has also been submitted that since the P.D.S.P. Who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer has failed to fix the responsibility and point out the person who had tempered the result sheet, so the Superintendent of Police has arbitrarily held the appellant guilty of the charges being the beneficiary. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned District Attorney that the principle of locus poenitentiae would not operate as a bar in the present case because the appellant had fraudulently manouvered the entry of his name in the list in dispute. It has further been submitted that the record shows that the appellant had secured only 152 marks as such his name could not have been entered in list B-I.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. It is conceded at the bar that the qualifying marks for entry of the name of a Constable in List B-I were fixed on 170 marks. The record shows that the appellant had obtained 152 marks only and that his name had been included in the list of constables who had secured more than 170 marks. Since the name of the appellant appeared over and above the names of Constables Khan Muhammad and Ijaz Ahmad, although he had obtained less earmarks than the aforesaid constables. This also indicates that the appellant had manouvered the entry of his name at S. No, 16 in the order, which should not have been present there. Thus, we hold that the appellant could not secure the minimum qualifying marks and as such was not eligible for entry of his name in list B-1. Since the name of the appellant was brought on list B-I through fraudulent means, so as held by the Superior Court, the appellant cannot be permitted to reap the fruits of his own fraud, so we hold that the principle of locus poenitentiae would not be applicable in the present case and the Superintendent of Police has competently passed the impugned order which is in accordance with the law and is unexceptionable.
5. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. However, we have noticed that while awarding punishment to the appellant, the departmental authorities have not imposed the punishment as envisaged under the Rules.
According to Rule, 4 (i) (a) (iv) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disicpline) Rules 1975, the stoppage of increments for a period not exceeding three years without cumulative effect has been prescribed as B a minor punishment. Since while awarding the punishment the Superintendent of Police had ordered to stop the increment of the appellant for a period of three years with cumulative effect, which is not in I consonance with the Rules. As such we order that the penalty awarded to the appellant will be that of stoppage of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect.
6. In view of the above detailed analysis, we dismiss the appeal but modified the penalty as indicated in the above para. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.