' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-GUI Muhammad Head Constable, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded D. I.-G. Police, Multan Range, Multan, Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal district, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that order of Respondent No, 1, dated 27th August, 1979 and 26th May, 1980 reducing the appellant from A. S. I. To that of Head Constable and removing the appellant from List 'D' be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working at P. S. Shah Kot, was entrusted with the investigation of Case F. I. R. No, 131, dated 8th November, 1978 under sections 430, 324, 148/149 P.
P. C. He was served with a show-cause notice on account of certain complaints regarding the said F. I. R. By the S. P. Sahiwal. He submitted his explanation which was found unsatisfactory and was dismissed from service vide order, dated 18th April, 1979. Aggrieved against the said order he filed appeal before the D. I.-G. Police, Multan who after giving him personal hearing, set aside the above order and re-instated him in service on the ground that he was not heard in person. However, the same D. I. G. Police after passing the said order, within six days issued him a show-cause notice in which he reiterated the same charges, and dispensing with the regular departmental proceedings called upon him to explain his conduct. It was on 27th August, 1979 that after hearing the appellant in person, he reduced him from the rank of A. S. I. To Head Constable w,e,f, 26th May, 1980 on account of his bad performance and bad reports so earned by him wherein he was dubbed as corrupt officer. He filed representation before the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab against the said order but the same was rejected, vide his order, dated 28th June, 1981. 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 submitted that although his grievance is against the order of reduction in rank but as he has failed to file representation against the said order to the higher authorities, therefore, he will not press for his claim with regard to this aspect of the case. However, he has agitated that the order of D. I.-G. Police, Multan Range, by which the name of the appellant has been removed from List 'ID', be set aside as the same was not justified as well as unwarranted under the rules so laid down in this behalf.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has relied on rule 13.12 (2) of Police Rules of 1934, Vol. II and has submitted that the impugned order so challenged was absolutely correct and was within the four corners of the said rules so quoted above. He has prayed that, the appeal be dismissed as without being any force.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have perused rule 13.12 (2) of the Police Rules carefully. According to this rule the D.-I. G. Police was fully competent to watch with special care, at all times, the conduct and efficiency of the officials at Lists D & E. It was within his competency to remove the name of a civil servant, if he found that the said civil servant, was unfit for promotion for faults and which indicate definite incompetence and defects of character. However, the said officer was fully competent to restore a civil servant back to the said list in recognition of the conduct of outstanding merit.
8. In the present case the appellant who was reduced in rank in 1979, earned a bad report in the first part of the year and his service record was chequered one. In view of the above we have no reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 28th May, 1980 passed by the D. I. G. Multan for which he was competent to pass under rule 13.12(2) of the Police Rules, 1934.
9. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. To be communicated to the parties.