' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Abdul Rehman has made, this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Messrs Malik Muhammad Asghar, Naib-Tehsildar, Revenue Academy, Lala Musa, Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Naib-Tehsildar 1st, Lahore Cantt. Ch. Muhammad Arshad, Naib-Tehsildar (Recovery), Kasur and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Feroze, Naib-Tehsildar Colony, Depalpur, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 29th June, 1982 and 30th June, 1982 insofar as these deny promotion to the appellant as Naib-Tehsildar or right of being considered for such promotion be set aside. It has also been prayed that respondents be directed to give the appellant pro forma promotion or considered for the same as Naib-Tehsildar from the date from which his juniors were promoted as such.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected A Class Kanungo from Lahore District in 1955. He was appointed as Settlement Kanungo in 1959 and Kanungo Consolidation in Tehsil Lahore in 1960. The appellant was confirmed as Kanungo on 11th March, 1966. The appellant was promoted as Naib-Tehsildar on 5th July, 1966 and reverted on 15th December, 1966 for want of vacancy. The appellant was again promoted on 13th November, 1970 and was reverted on 1st December, 1976 due to winding of settlement operations. The appellant was charge-sheeted in the year 1968 on the basis of two allegations as detailed in the charge-sheet at Annexure 'A'. A regular enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer recorded finding that the charges against the appellant were not proved. The enquiry was accepted by the competent authority i. e. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and the appellant was exonerated of the charges, vide order dated 24th February, 1971. Again, vide order, dated 2nd June, 1972, the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, ordered a fresh enquiry against the appellant, in view of the subsequent evidence and facts which had come to light during the course of proceeding before him which were also not brought to the notice of his predecessor and sought the sanction of Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore as the appellant was under the control of the Commissioner. The complainant party submitted a complaint against the appellant to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as well. An enquiry was ordered by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, vide his order, dated 25th October, 1972, wherein the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore was appointed as Enquiry Officer. When the enquiry was in progress, a writ petition was filed in the Lahore High Court in the year 1972 by the appellant. The learned Court was pleased to suspend the enquiry vide their order dated 11th January, 1973 and admitted the same vide order, dated 25th April, 1974. The writ petition has since been pending in the Lahore High Court. The appellant was promoted as Naib-Tehsildar from time to time on purely temporary basis. He was last promoted as Naib-Tehsildar on purely temporary basis by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore vide his order, dated 24th January, 1983. Lately, the appellant has withdrawn the writ petition from the Lahore High Court, vide Lahore High Court order dated 28th May, 1983. Consequence to this, the Commissioner, Lahore, Division, Lahore has directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Lahore, the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry which is pending since October, 1972, in view of the above writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order, dated 28th/29th June, 1982 of the respondent No, 1 by which he has been reverted and impugned order, dated 30th June, 1982 of the same respondent, through which 11 Kanungos juniors to him have been selected as Naib- Tehsildars. The appellant filed representation to respondent No, 2 which has not been decided although a period of 90 days has since expired. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as a result of departmental enquiry against the appellant, he was exonerated of the charges, vide order, dated 24th February, 1971 by Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, as the charges were not proved against the appellant. The action of respondent No, 1 to restart the enquiry and appointment of Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore as Enquiry Officer, vide his order, dated 25th October, 1972, on the same charges on which the appellant had been exonerated earlier, is unlawful and not in order. This enquiry taken up against the appellant, being unlawful should have no effect on the regular promotion of the appellant to the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The appellant was considered for promotion in the year 1975 but was ignored on the basis of this enquiry and his juniors were promoted. The appellant was again reconsidered in the year 1982 and was ignored on the same ground that the departmental enquiry was pending against the appellant. The appellant's counsel has prayed that the impugned order of Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, dated 30th June, 1982 through which his juniors have been selected as Naib-Tehsildars and also the impugned order, dated 28th June, 1982 through which the appellant has been reverted from the post of Naib-Tehsildar to Kanungo, be quashed being unjustified and unlawful.
5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant in his appeal has prayed against the promotion denied to the appellant and has also requested the Tribunal to direct the respondents to give him the pro forma promotion. It has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that his prayer does not fall within the purview of the Punjab Service Tribunal, as per section 4 (1) (b), no appeal lies to the Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade. Thus, this appeal does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that appellant himself went to the Lahore High Court by filing a writ petition against the second enquiry ordered by the departmental authorities in the year 1972 which was admitted by the Lahore High Court in the year 1974. Thus, he was himself responsible for delaying the enquiry and seeking the remedy from the Lahore High Court, at his own will. It is in the year 1983 that he has withdrawn his writ petition from the Lahore High Court as ordered by Lahore High Court on 28th May, 1983. Thus, he has now himself agreed for this enquiry. Consequence to his withdrawal of the writ petition, the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore has directed the Enquiry Officer on 6th July, 1983 to complete the enquiry immediately. Thus, there has been no lapse whatsoever on the part of the departmental authorities and the appellant is himself responsible for the delay and he should not blame the departmental authorities for acts of his own.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case. We find that the appellant himself filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court against the enquiry ordered by the respondent No, 1 in the year 1972. This writ petition has been withdrawn by him from the Lahore High Court as ordered by the Lahore High Court on 28th May, 1983. Thus, the departmental authorities were not in a position to complete the enquiry against the appellant which remained suspended under the order of the Lahore High Court. On withdrawal of the writ petit ion by the appellant, the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore has ordered the Enquiry Officer vide his order, dated 6th July, 1983, to finalize the enquiry immediately. Hence, the appellant cannot blame the departmental authorities for act of his own. By withdrawing the writ petition, it has been accepted by the appellant that the enquiry ordered by the respondent No, 1 i. e., Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore is in order and he should have no grievances against the completion of this enquiry. The appellant is also asking us to interfere in the matter of denial of promotion to him as Naib-Tehsildar or right of being considered for such promotion or to give him the pro forma promotion. We agree with the arguments of the learned District Attorney that it is not within our purview to entertain an appeal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or B otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade as per section 4 (i) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
Thus this appeal does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed as the same does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. However, we have an observation to make that the enquiry be finalized at the earliest and action completed within two months of the issue of this judgment by respondent No, 1, so that the appellant may not suffer due to further delay in the matter.
' There will be no order as to costs.